Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v6j1ol$1bddn$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: More complex numbers than reals? Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 06:00:50 -0400 Organization: Peripheral Visions Lines: 13 Message-ID: <v6j1ol$1bddn$1@dont-email.me> References: <v6ihi1$18sp0$6@dont-email.me> 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: Tue, 09 Jul 2024 12:00:54 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="14944db00969312a32bd43d4e60ba081"; logging-data="1422775"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18rFrLF1XdFT+ZKdOfv9mW9QJkF1rYJoa4=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:DYn5GCetZ4NciLrPWvk5o0rebOU= X-Newsreader: MesNews/1.08.06.00-gb X-ICQ: 1701145376 Bytes: 1726 Chris M. Thomasson explained on 7/9/2024 : > Are there "more" complex numbers than reals? It seems so, every real has its > y, or imaginary, component set to zero. Therefore for each real there is an > infinity of infinite embedding's for it wrt any real with a non-zero y axis? > Fair enough, or really dumb? A little stupid? What do you think? In a sense there are 'more' since the reals are all on the x axis line whereas the 2D R x R space is filled with complex numbers. R is contained in C. In another sense they are the same size set, Q being basically R by R in the same sense as Q being Z by Z). Are there any other sizes of sets between countable Q and uncountable R? How about between uncountable R and uncountable C?