Science Memes

11148 readers

2735 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

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

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

836

Zero to hero (mander.xyz)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

134 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 1 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 2 points 6 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.