Comment

HexesofVexes@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

baseless_discourse@mander.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨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? I think, 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.

source
- HexesofVexes@lemmy.world ⁨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.
  
  source