What is aleph-null?

What is aleph-null?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    aleph null denotes the cardinality of the natural numbers, i.e. the total number there are of integers

    it is the smallest infinite number and smaller than the car finality of the real numbers

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Meaningless babble. Infinite sets do not have sizes.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        that's why i said "cardinality" instead

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        The notion of size assigned to the smallest possible set provided by the axiom of infinity in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory.

        Size is an idea and can be interpreted however you like. Area is a type of size. There are infinitely many points in a square. Don't squares have area? Math is about building around formal thinking, not rejecting ideas because you think they're stinky.

        aleph null denotes the cardinality of the natural numbers, i.e. the total number there are of integers

        it is the smallest infinite number and smaller than the car finality of the real numbers

        You used 'i.e.' incorrectly. 'I.e' means 'that is.' Also it isn't number. Numbers are sets with well defined arithmetic operations attached.

        the delusion that infinity is countable

        The existence of such a notion of size follows directly from axioms, there is no delusion. You may disagree with fundamental mathematical axioms, but that doesn't make their consequences wrong. It is important to note that if you personally disagree with the existence of aleph-null, you would also disagree that the number line you learned as a child exists.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >if you personally disagree with the existence of aleph-null, you would also disagree that the number line you learned as a child exists
          complete nonsense

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            k ill take the bait.
            Refuting axiom of infinity but also asserting the existence of a naive number line implies claim implies there is a maximal integer. Please fix this inconsistency and I will yield to your big brain argument.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >existence of a naive number line implies claim implies there is a maximal integer.
            Infinity means 'just keep getting bigger'. From this, it then extends to 'well, which infinity is bigger?'

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >all math is set theory

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            countability doesn't come from the axiom of infinity.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Numbers are sets with well defined arithmetic operations attached.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number#Cardinal_arithmetic

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Areas have the same cardinality though so the finitist schizo would be correct in saying they have no "sizes" to compare

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        cool story. prove you aren't pseuding and define "cardinality" in your own words right now. specifically, prove to me you know what is meant by card(A)=card(B)

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    the delusion that infinity is countable

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      countable is a dumb word
      denumerable / enumerable is better

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        🙂

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The intersection of all inductive sets

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    It’s a israeli trick.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The zeroest zero

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Let's just say they didn't pick a Hebrew letter for no reason.

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Cantor's paradox shows that you cannot assign a cardinality to the set of all cardinal numbers. Couldn't this be resolved by defining a constant superinfinity with the unique property that it is so large, if you take the power set of a set with cardinality superinfinity then the power set has cardinality superinfinity as well? Either this or you have to accept that not all set have a well-defined cardinality.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      In set theories with proper classes like NBG and MK, you can take the powerclass (class of all subsets of) a proper class.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        How does this solve the problem? Do classes have no cardinality? If they do you could apply the same argument again.

        All sets have well-defined cardinality. Your argument just shows that the premise that cardinal numbers are all included in a set is false, similar to how Russell's paradox doesn't prove that there exists sets who belong to themselves, but rather just proves that the Russell class is not a set.

        >All sets have well-defined cardinality
        Is this an axiom? Doesn't the Cantor paradox show the exact opposite?

        >Russell's paradox
        Not actually a paradox. It doesn't define a class either. Just shows how unrestricted comprehension can produce utter nonsense.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Cantor's paradox shows that you cannot assign a cardinality to the set of all cardinal numbers.
      no it doesnt

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Dont stop him. Let him keep going.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      All sets have well-defined cardinality. Your argument just shows that the premise that cardinal numbers are all included in a set is false, similar to how Russell's paradox doesn't prove that there exists sets who belong to themselves, but rather just proves that the Russell class is not a set.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    What is Santa Claus? What is Easter Bunny? What is the Fairy Queen? The Boogeyman under your bed?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *