fossilesqueM to Science MemesEnglish · 2 months agoZero to heroimagemessage-square138fedilinkarrow-up1887arrow-down117
arrow-up1870arrow-down1imageZero to herofossilesqueM to Science MemesEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square138fedilink
minus-squarebaseless_discourselinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-22 months ago On the contrary - to be countabley infinite is generally assumed to mean there exists a 1-1 correspondence with N. Isn’t this what I just said? If I am not mistaken, this is exactly what “unique up-to bijection” means. Anyways, I mean either starting from 1 or 0, they can be used to count in the exactly same way.
minus-squareHexesofVexes@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·2 months agoI’m arguing from the standpoint that we establish the idea of counting using the naturals - it’s countable if it maps to the naturals, thus the link. Apologies for the lack of clarity.
Isn’t this what I just said? If I am not mistaken, this is exactly what “unique up-to bijection” means.
Anyways, I mean either starting from 1 or 0, they can be used to count in the exactly same way.
I’m arguing from the standpoint that we establish the idea of counting using the naturals - it’s countable if it maps to the naturals, thus the link. Apologies for the lack of clarity.