Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <uujudu$115r$1@dont-email.me>
Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<uujudu$115r$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article 
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: sci.math
Subject: Re: Contradiction of bijections as a measure for infinite sets
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 11:59:54 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <uujudu$115r$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qHqKnNhkFFpow5Tl3Eiz12-8JEI@jntp> <uu6fo6$3dq4t$1@i2pn2.org> <ZIe3ohnd0vDG1-QosVonoapT7V8@jntp> <uu9j79$3gijc$8@i2pn2.org> <5fxRDo_iHMUImphe8RGVplmYuCQ@jntp> <uuc9cr$3j5g3$1@i2pn2.org> <nVHZfuyg7O6FHCXZXigDgC2s8EU@jntp> <uufegr$3p7r0$1@i2pn2.org> <XNMbPeWA6KdZNjVAaRrj0SXXhxo@jntp> <e392b515-c9ad-4e57-8edd-ceedc8b67bea@att.net> <XXPbPRsdhaYaKB7KZdQr_ljWUOk@jntp>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 15:59:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b18b7728fdfab68dc49821d792dddfec";
	logging-data="33979"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/+iTsx4KJUpVBeo0CBr1gLy2wQBH/+hfY="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:56r4mewUJ7lMLEVolMj87pE0whM=
X-ICQ: 1701145376
X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb
Bytes: 1902

WM presented the following explanation :
> Le 02/04/2024 à 17:51, Jim Burns a écrit :
>> On 4/2/2024 3:36 AM, WM wrote:
>
>> If your assumption leads to "no bijection",
>> but there is a bijection,
>> then your assumption is wrong.
>
> My trick proves that there is no bijection.
> Or could you explain why first bijecting n and n/1 should destroy an existing 
> bijection?

Your 'trick' only fails to demonstrate a bijection. Failing to 
demonstrate a bijection does not mean that there is no bijection, only 
that your 'trick' doesn't work to that end.