Re: An uncountable countable set

David R Tribble wrote:
Tony Orlow wrote:
For the sake of this argument, we can talk about infinite reals, of
which infinite whole numbers are a subset.

What are these "infinite reals" and "infinite whole numbers" that you
speak of so much?

If you've got a set containing the finite naturals and the "infinite
naturals", how do you define it? N is the set containing 0 and all
of its successors, so what is your set?


The very same, with no restriction of finiteness. Any T-riffic number has successor. :)

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... >>means the set CANNOT be infinite. ... > "every finite natural has finitely many predecessors" ... > "The set of finite naturals is a finite set" ... Because if an element has an infinite number of successors, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >>> GREATER than the largest value, as you add successors. ... and therefore never becomes infinite as long as the elements ... > No, I am saying that, when you start with 0, the size is larger than all ... > finite naturals, you say the size is larger than all finite naturals, so it ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Is there an element with 10 predecessors? ... know that any element has n successors, then you know that at least one other ... if there is some element x an infinite number ... > N are finite naturals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... speak of so much? ... If you've got a set containing the finite naturals and the "infinite ... Oh, I should think it's the same, only if you keep an open mind, and ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... David R Tribble wrote: ... speak of so much? ... If you've got a set containing the finite naturals and the "infinite ...
    (sci.math)