Talk:Cardinality of N k

I think (vague memory of this, it was a long time ago) the thinking behind this page was to prove rigorously that $\left\{{0, 1, 2, \ldots, n-1}\right\}$ had the same cardinality as $\left\{{1, 2, \ldots, n-1, n}\right\}$, so as to join the dots between the sources which used $0$-based $\N$ and those that used $1$-based. I think the sticking-point here may be avoiding proof dependency circularity. --prime mover (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In that case, may be best to leave it until we get round to covering the whole cardinality realm with more rigour (once someone feels like properly covering set theory, probably). But as for me, that won't happen before PredLog (leading into model theory), and before I get to PredLog, heaps of stuff needs to be addressed in PropLog -- which I can't bear at the moment. &mdash; Lord_Farin (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain. --prime mover (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)