Re: An uncountable countable set

From: "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 18 Oct 2006 11:46:47 -0700

Han de Bruijn wrote:

But why are the finite ordinals not equivalent with the naturals (I mean
in mainstream mathematics)?

The set of finite ordinals IS the set of natural numbers.

x is a natural number <-> x is a finite ordinal.

Why don't you just read a textbook?

MoeBlee

.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: Lester Zick

References:
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: *** T. Winter
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: Han . deBruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: MoeBlee
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: Han de Bruijn
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: David Marcus
- Re: An uncountable countable set
  - From: Han de Bruijn

Prev by Date: Re: JSH: Computer checking
Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
Previous by thread: Re: An uncountable countable set
Next by thread: Re: An uncountable countable set
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread