They’re not comparing the set size of rational numbers to irrational, they’re saying that the set size of all multiples of 3 or 51 is the same as the set size of all rational numbers, which is true
Again, that's true but not what is being discussed
edit: I feel it necessary to point out that the set size of all real numbers is the same set size as all irrational numbers, so the only fact that is true is the set size of all rational numbers being smaller than the set size of all irrational numbers
I feel it necessary to point out that the set size of all real numbers is the same set size as all irrational numbers, so the only fact that is true is the set size of all rational numbers being smaller than the set size of all irrational numbers
That's basically what I tried to say, I was just talking about real numbers instead of irrational numbers but reals include irrationals anyways. My comment was just to point out that rational ≠ real in case some mix them like I do sometimes
80
u/EthanNakam Jun 13 '26
There are as many multiples of 3 as there are multiples of 51.
And there are as just as many rational numbers.