Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Posting with sage

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 21:40

ITT we post with sage. No thread deserves to be bumped.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 21:43

I agree.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 21:44

Thread noted for future necromancy

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 23:21

RISE FROM YOU'RE COFFIN

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 23:58

>>3,4
Stop what you're doing!

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-13 3:08

>>5
*your

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-13 3:33

>>6
Pointer to your?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-13 5:04

>>7
What about his?

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-27 13:45

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-02 23:07

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 17:26

Name: Anonymous 2013-09-01 17:08


Cardinality is defined in terms of bijective functions. Two sets have the same cardinality if and only if there is a bijection between them. In the case of finite sets, this agrees with the intuitive notion of size. In the case of infinite sets, the behavior is more complex. A fundamental theorem due to Georg Cantor shows that it is possible for infinite sets to have different cardinalities, and in particular the cardinality of the set of real numbers is greater than the cardinality of the set of natural numbers. It is also possible for a proper subset of an infinite set to have the same cardinality as the original set, something that cannot happen with proper subsets of finite sets.

Name: Anonymous 2013-09-01 19:25


There are many technical advantages to this restriction, and little generality is lost, because essentially all mathematical concepts can be modeled by pure sets. Sets in the von Neumann universe are organized into a cumulative hierarchy, based on how deeply their members, members of members, etc. are nested.

Name: Anonymous 2014-01-21 21:01

>>1-1000
>le pedophile sage

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List