this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
870 points (98.1% liked)

Science Memes

9357 readers
2528 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

countable infinite set are unique up-to bijection, you can count by rational numbers if you want. I don't think counting is a good intuition.

[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

On the contrary - to be countabley infinite is generally assumed to mean there exists a 1-1 correspondence with N. Though, I freely admit that another set could be used if you assumed it more primitive.

[–] baseless_discourse@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

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.