From cowan@ccil.org Fri Jul 07 13:13:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24153 invoked from network); 7 Jul 2000 20:13:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 7 Jul 2000 20:13:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 7 Jul 2000 20:13:18 -0000 Received: from localhost (cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA02696; Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:49:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:49:38 -0400 (EDT) To: Ivan A Derzhanski Cc: The Lojban List Subject: Re: [lojban] 2 maths questions In-Reply-To: <39657E2D.45E9@math.bas.bg> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Ivan A Derzhanski wrote: > And in the same way the set of all integers that aren't divisible > by 3 is twice as thick as the set of integers that are, although > neither is a subset of the other (their intersection is empty). Appealing. > [V]ery many interesting sets don't have a constant thickness. Granted. But is there a sense in which it makes sense to talk about the overall thickness, and assign an aggregate value to it? -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China" --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know