|
|
Tony Orlow wrote:
>> Umm, that's not the way I see it. I'm not sure what the problem is here. I
>> don't think a bijection signifies equal size for infinite sets, first of all.
>
Brian Chandler wrote:
> Do you, Tony, think it necessary to define what you mean by "equal
> size"? Or do you merely prefer not to use the expression at all?
>
David R Tribble said:
>> And yet you have never provided us with a bijection between two
>> same-sized infinite sets, such as the set of naturals and the set of
>> even naturals, that omits elements from either set.
>
Brian Chandler wrote:
> Do you, David, think it necessary to define what you mean by "equal
> size"? You seem to be using it here to mean "being bijectable" - why
> not use "being bijectable" for this?
I understand that "bijection" equates to "equal set size", but Tony
does not.
I avoid using the accepted mathematical terms like "bijection" when
responding to Tony because such terms usually cause him to roll his
eyes and start blathering about how the "bijection" is a flawed concept
and does not really mean anything. So I use the less accurate term
"size", which I assume Tony has some understanding of. Not the
same understanding as you and me, but still, using it reduces his
tangents.
|
|