Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 239 KB, 720x540, rationals.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12590053 No.12590053 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

How the fuck can these have the same cardinality? Is set theory bullshit?

>> No.12590081
File: 99 KB, 561x595, 1275438373087.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12590081

>>12590053
>i smell a cs major

>> No.12590131

Read a proof, retard

>> No.12590137

>>12590053
sets have the same cardinality if a bijection exists between the sets
it's easy to see that you can do this between these sets
regardless your image is retarded, 0 is a natural number, and it is a number you use to count with

>> No.12590170

Why is /sci/ so filtered by infinity? I would of thought /sci/ would love the schizo nature of it. Why do they suddenly attack one of the very rare cases where schizo bullshit was vindicated?

>> No.12590233

>>12590170
/sci/ is filled with a bunch of contrarian failures who think contradicting the expert consensus makes them intelligent

>> No.12590353

>>12590170
infinity is a schizophrenic delusion

>> No.12590463

>>12590170
WOULD HAVE

>> No.12591813

>>12590137
>0 is a natural number
no it's not

>> No.12591835

>>12590137
>0 is a natural number

Not by most mathematicians' convention.

>> No.12591884

>>12590137
>0 is a natural number
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.12592023

>>12591813
>>12591835
>>12591884
incredibly cringe
0 is a natural number
without 0, the natural numbers are not a monoid under addition, nor a group or a ring under addition and multiplication. with 0 it is all of these.
moreover, you need 0 to construct the natural numbers, as each non-zero natural number is the successor of a non-zero natural number or zero, it's there perverse to exclude zero from the natural numbers.
>>12591835
most mathematicians do consider 0 a natural number. look up the first peano axiom retard.

>> No.12592036

>>12591884
>>12591835
>>12591813
Another advantage of including zero is that then the cardinality of any finite set is in the natural numbers.
Also, if you consider natural numbers "counting numbers", then it should include zero since you use zero to count (for example, if you count how many women you've slept with you get zero)

>> No.12592052

>>12592036
>if you count how many women you've slept with you get zero
This argument is either too much or not enough. Indeed, if you have gay sex you need to close your counting set under inverses, and if you take into account trannies, you need full-blown algebraic completion.

>> No.12592984

>>12592023
>nor a group or a ring under addition and multiplication. with 0 it is all of these.
No, it’s not a group without additive inverses, it’s only a semigroup you retard

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action