Kevin Wampler wrote:

> I suggest you start by proving that there's the same number of rationals 
> as natural numbers.

But there are surely *more* rational numbers than natural numbers?

Actually, let's try something easier: Common sense tells you that the 
number of 2D coordinates is obviously [vastly] greater than the number 
of 1D points. Yet set theory asserts that both sets are exactly the same 
size. How can this be?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message