technically yes, but the proof would usually show that this works by constructing the bijection of [0,1] and (0,1) and then you’d say the cardinalities are the same by the Schröder-Berstein theorem, because the proof of the latter is likely not something you want to demonstrate every day

even if that’s not how you can write it, one gets the same issue in yours subtracting infinity from both sides

it’s actually Vulcan

ah, but don’t forget to prove that the cardinality of [0,1] is that same as that of (0,1) on the way!

no, there aren’t enough integers to map onto the interval (0,1).

probably the most famous proof for this is Cantor’s diagonalisation argument. though as it usually shows how the cardinality of the naturals is small than this interval, you’ll also need to prove that the cardinality of the integers is the same as that of the naturals too (which is usually seen when you go about constructing the set of integers to begin with)

actually you can for each real number you can exhaustively map a uninque number from the interval (0,1) onto it. (there are many such examples, you can find one way by playing around with the function tanx)

this means these two sets are of the same size by the mathematical definition of cardinality :)

sorry, I’m a little slow today. how is this seemingly keeping the economy afloat?

I think the worry is a WW3 with China

XMPP?

while the last point is perhaps the main determinant theory behind why many older people are not being owing more right wing, I’m a little confused by your first two points.

especially the fact that people have greater access to knowledge and are forced to think more critically. if anything, with the advent of the internet, echo chambers have never been easier, preventing critical thinking. this leads to a growing of extreme positions which further reinforces such views due to tribalistic fallacies in our thinking and the need for these tribal identities to distinguish themselves.

it’s extremely tempting, but without a stylus I’m not quite sure this does it for me :/

depends how you define duck; you can very much make it a binary. ultimately every term is just a construct

Canada is just British-flavoured America

perfect! thank you :)

could you remind me which part of Marxism exactly it was Stalin was implementing, other than claiming to be in line with Marxism? a dictatorship of the proletariat perhaps?