Re: A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- From: Ronald Bruck <bruck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:26:57 -0700
In article <Pine.BSI.4.58.0609172003580.1979@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
William Elliot <marsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
Thomas Glanzmann wrote:
As notice in my previous post, it's true also when one of the setsI read my math script and wonder about the following implication:
A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
I wonder if this is even correct when M and N share some elements or if
the above statement is only correct if the two sets are disjoint?
It is correct when the two sets are either disjoint or infinite. For
infinite sets we have |M| + |N| = max(|M|,|N|) so disjointness doesn't
matter.
is infinite, or equivalently, when A is infinite.
I'm reading everybody's reply to this, and I can't help wondering:
does this guy mean cardinality, or measure? |A| is also an
(old-fashioned) notation for the Lebesgue measure of A. Of course,
under neither interpretation is the implication valid...
I also have no idea what a math "script" is. I hope it means "text".
I have the terrible fear that it means "a list of things to know" to
solve math problems. Rather like the first dozen plays of a football
game being scripted...
--
Ron Bruck
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- From: Marc Olschok
- Re: A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- References:
- A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- From: Thomas Glanzmann
- Re: A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- From: Aatu Koskensilta
- Re: A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- From: William Elliot
- A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- Prev by Date: Re: Group theory
- Next by Date: JSH: The "Published" paper he dosen't what you to know about.
- Previous by thread: Re: A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- Next by thread: Re: A = M U N => |A| = |M| + |N|
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
