> Tom Christiansen wrote: > >>Unless I'm very wrong, there are more whole numbers than natural > >>numbers. An induction should prove that there are twice as many. > > > > > > We're probably having a language and/or terminology collision. By natural > > numbers, I mean the positive integers. By whole numbers, I mean the > > natural numbers plus the number zero. > [...] > I meant naturals plus 0 plus negative integers by "whole numbers". > Nonethelesss, I was wrong and stand corrected. I'll think about my posts > a little more thoroughly in future before hitting the send button.
Usually, I refer to naturals plus 0 plus negative integers as, well, "integers". :) Formally, (at least as I've learned it), integers are (-Inf, Inf), naturals are [0, Inf), and wholes are [1, Inf). Just to set the record straight. But yes, there are just as many integers as there are natural numbers, at least according to Cantor and his henchmen. Luke
