Timeline for Are there more rational numbers than integers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2010 at 21:49 | comment | added | user510 | OK, sorry for the oversensitivity there. In my case, I suspect my confusion is typical of programmers who only occasionally worry about computer science and math. Set theory is OK, but I don't remember the details off the top of my head, and in general I don't need to deal with the infinite. Even the cardinality of the set of integers is usually, to me, a little over 4 billion. | |
| Jul 31, 2010 at 21:32 | comment | added | Niel de Beaudrap | (1) Whoa man, I never said you're "not up to handling set theory" --- I just suggested that if you find their definitions to be not the ones you care about, there are other areas. I have basically this attitude towards higher cardinalities myself: I understand them, I'm just not sure why we should care, when we can't even prove whether or not the continuum is the smallest uncountable cardinal. (2) It really depends on what you mean by "a number"; why should that property be necessary? (3) I only wrote my answer based on your question, which was typical of students learning about cardinality. | |
| Jul 31, 2010 at 20:43 | comment | added | user510 | On the "alternative mappings" I gave extremes in both directions - one rational to many integers as well as the other way around. On predecessors, I'm basically restating the classic argument for why infinity is not a number - ie because it doesn't behave as a number. As for your implication that I'm not up to handling set theory - I've coped with it perfectly well when I've needed to. In this case, I didn't realise I was dealing with set theory. BTW - at 39 years old, I am not looking to study anything formally. Don't assume everyone who asks about math is a student please. | |
| Jul 31, 2010 at 20:26 | history | answered | Niel de Beaudrap | CC BY-SA 2.5 |