|
|
![[parent]](http://images.planetmath.org:8080/images/uparrow.png) Viewing Message
|
|
|
| ``Re: (de)numerable''
by perucho on 2006-06-22 02:03:14 |
|
| >I think you and many more prefer account instead of enumerate by >costum (hundreds/thounsands years of use)
>versus the modern (precise as mathematics can be) use,
>associating things with numbers...
Indeed in Math ``countable'' is as precise as ``numerable'' and yes!,I prefer to account whenever I deal with a countable set. Let's see it on another pointview: Consider a right triangle with legs=$(a,b)\subset\mathbb{Z}\times\mathbb{Z}$ variables. So the hypotenuse $c=\sqrt{a^2+b^2}$. Therefore I say that such hypotenuses are numerable(measurable/medible?), because I assign a number $c\notin\mathbb{N}$ to each hypotenuse. Here the word ``countable/contable'' sounds not so natural.(The real algebraic set numbers are numerable/countable[Cantor])
>How do you use account word to represent "number"? account unit?
Through bijection with the natural numbers. Account unit=1; 1+0=1.
>about changing the word... where from?
I said that English mathematicians use ``countable/contable'' and Spanish mathematicians use ``numerable/numerable'' to define the same concept and that is the standard way. Just only that! I want to change nothing! I agree with you about the word ``precise'' that I used it was not precise, so please change it by ``suggestive'', for instance.
Cheers my friend,
perucho
|
| | [ reply | up | top ] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
