Re: The infintely small number b

On Nov 18, 10:20 am, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:54 am, Venkat Reddy <vred...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 17, 8:55 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
To me, multiple infinities exist only because of favoring one
unimaginable concept (element mapping) over the other (size
comparison). We are asked to accept that it is logically possible or
imaginable to do a one-to-one mapping of the elements of two infinite
sets, while at the same time, should reject the notion that a part
might be smaller than the whole which, in fact, has other parts. Both
comparison and mapping do not make sense for infinite sets, I think.
There is no reason to favor any one.

- venkat

Then what do you call doing this?:

1 <-> 2
2 <-> 4
3 <-> 6
4 <-> 8
...

What's that? According to you, it's not mapping. So what is
it?

I haven't said it is not mapping. I only questioned the validity of
this mapping and its results for infinite sets. I'm sure that you
believe it works irrespective of the size of the set. Then why don't
you believe that the second set is only a part of the first set and
hence smaller. Now you would say that this comparison doesn't work for
infinite sizes. How sensible.

- venkat
.

Relevant Pages