Well, if there was a bijection f from the set of natural numbers to the set of rational numbers, would you tell me what f(4895569879832983429893449999) is? You don't know it, and you can't find it out without an algorithm, and algorithms are always finite. There is no clause.
The fact that the set of rational numbers would be numberable would mean that there would be a bijection from the set of rational numbers to the set of natural numbers. But you have, for example, the numbers 1/1, 2/2, 3/3,...,n/n=1 among the rational numbers, but the bijection should have a goal...
On the one hand, Cantor showed that not all real numbers can be enumerated, while on the other hand he showed that rational numbers can. Cantor demonstrated this with a grid. In the picture below, a natural number (yellow) is assigned to each rational number in order, but since the natural...
I announce a playful competition :smile: Who can find the largest prime number with the programmed code? I found the number 2249999999999999981 with the Python code. I first tabulated the truth value of the prime numerosity of numbers smaller than 1.5 billion using Erasthonene's sieve, and then...
Yes I know. But if the current definition of the meter implies that the speed of light is constant, then the claim that it is constant cannot be refuted.
No. I don't think that's what I'm saying, but that the statement "The speed of light is constant" cannot be experimentally disproved in any way. That's not science. It's religion.
It follows directly from the definition of the meter that the speed of light is always constant in a vacuum. It's a...
But, what if it wasn't constant in a vacuum? Because of the definition of meter, a statement just cannot be experimentally proven false when it is a tautology.
I find it interesting that the more massive the black hole, the weaker the fall acceleration at the distance of the Schwarzschild radius - that's why you wouldn't necessarily notice anything special in the event horizon.