Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science

From: aeo6 (aeo6_at_cornell.edu)
Date: 03/01/05 

Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:48:00 -0500

robert j. kolker said:
>
>
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
>
> >
> > I brought up the proper subset argument, since it really drives the
> > point home. I would argue that [0,1] is smaller than [7,9],
>
> The sets are equi-numerous, i.e. they have the same cardinality. The
> sets have a different -measure-, in this case length. The first is
> length 1.0, the second length 2.0.
>
> Let us be precise in what you mean by smaller. Smaller cardinality or
> smaller measure. The two are not the the same.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
>
Well, I think it has become obvious by now that I am not talking about
cardinality. 

-- 
Smiles,
Tony

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... So cardinality vio one to one mappings has earned its ... > Bob Kolker ... identifiable reasons that should be avoided. ... with numerical mappings between sets and adds stipulations that make certain ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... We would like to compare the count (cardinality) of any two sets, ... > So the proper subset idea fails in two regards. ... It does not generalize to disjoint sets. ... > Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> I brought up the proper subset argument, since it really drives the ... i.e. they have the same cardinality. ... > Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
    ... >> I brought up the proper subset argument, since it really drives the ... i.e. they have the same cardinality. ... > Bob Kolker ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... > almost always means cardinality. ... > Bob Kolker ... extended to infinite sets. ... A system which suddenly makes normal basic axioms ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast