@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 1 year agoZero to heromander.xyzimagemessage-square136fedilinkarrow-up1881
arrow-up1881imageZero to heromander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 1 year agomessage-square136fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish2•edit-21 year ago On the contrary - to be countabley infinite is generally assumed to mean there exists a 1-1 correspondence with N. Isn’t this what I just said? If I am not mistaken, this is exactly what “unique up-to bijection” means. Anyways, I mean either starting from 1 or 0, they can be used to count in the exactly same way.
minus-squareHexesofVexeslinkfedilinkEnglish2•1 year agoI’m arguing from the standpoint that we establish the idea of counting using the naturals - it’s countable if it maps to the naturals, thus the link. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Isn’t this what I just said? If I am not mistaken, this is exactly what “unique up-to bijection” means.
Anyways, I mean either starting from 1 or 0, they can be used to count in the exactly same way.
I’m arguing from the standpoint that we establish the idea of counting using the naturals - it’s countable if it maps to the naturals, thus the link. Apologies for the lack of clarity.