:vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote: :vote:

  • silent_water [she/her]
    ·
    1 year ago

    no, emphatically:

    1. an infinite set is countable if there is a one to one mapping between it and the natural numbers. this is easy with the first set as you can literally count off, 1, 2, 3, etc..
    2. the second set is countable in exactly the same way.

    this is extremely basic set theory. you're deeply misinformed.

      • silent_water [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        no shit. I'm saying you can't use an enumerable set to produce a mapping with the reals. the natural numbers are an infinite set yet are definitionally countable as they are the ordinals.

        disengage, you're arguing nonsense with someone with a literal degree in mathematics.

          • ella [any]MA
            ·
            1 year ago

            Respect people's right to disengage

          • ella [any]MA
            ·
            1 year ago

            Respect people’s right to disengage

          • silent_water [she/her]
            ·
            1 year ago

            that's the conceit of the joke, the idea that you can use an enumerated list and map them to the reals. if you could do such a thing, you'd immediately fall prey to Cantor's diagonalization argument. the train tracks are a continuum. they can be mapped to the reals. a neverending list of people cannot.

              • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                The premise of the joke is incorrect because the joke thinks “infinity = infinity”.

                i fucking hate maths

      • silent_water [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        I'm pretty sure it's just a VOOOOTE joke about how there's no difference between the two parties, except aimed at math nerds.