Re: Galileo's Paradox

Tony Orlow wrote:

It is a direct consequence of the notion that a proper subset is always smaller, in some sense, than the base set.

And in another sense a proper subset of an infinite set has the same count as the set.

Bob Kolker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... always smaller, in some sense, than the base set. ... And in another sense a proper subset of an infinite set has the same ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Galileos Paradox
    ... Bob Kolker wrote: ... always smaller, in some sense, than the base set. ... And in another sense a proper subset of an infinite set has the same count as the set. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors circular "proof" that evens = integers
    ... with E" we do NOT need to invoke "Every infinite set is Dedekind ... 'infinite' and/or on some form of the axiom of choice. ... many textbooks of set theory that do NOT define 'infinite' as ... 'equinumerous with a proper subset of itself' and that only show "With ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Daryl McCullough said: ... > Tony Orlow says... ... >>Indeed, in my theory, an infinite set is one with an infinite number of ... Has it taught me I'm wrong? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Mr Dawkins new book?
    ... it's Anselm; it comes from his "ontological argument". ... an infinite set is one that can be placed in ... numbers has been placed in bijection with a proper subset. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)