I think you can do this kind of graphically. Hard to type out. But say you list the sets of X vertically like:
x1,1 x2,1 x3,1 …
x1,2 x2,2 x3,2 …
x1,3 x2,3 x3,3 …
.
.
.
start drawing a line at x1,1 then to x2,1, then diagonally back to x1,2 then down to x1,3, then diagonally up to x2,2 then x3,1, then over to x4,1 then diagonally down etc, so you are kind of making like a switchback route.
You started at 1 and then 2 and count as you go and you are mapping the natural numbers to X.
Thanks! I had a similar thought…I’m just trying to figure out how to explain why it works. Have you done some advanced math? I’ve somehow found myself in a graduate math class with no math background and no way out. 
I have a bachelor’s degree in math. I took one graduate class. Most of what advanced stuff I learned was because I had a close friend who was taking a bunch of graduate classes as an undergrad and was just super interested in math and we’d talk about it all the time and walk around campus late at night seeking out some of the really good PhD students and talk about problems with them. I was not a stoner, but my super math friend would be smoking a bowl before heading out on math adventures.
My experience is that the graduate math classes are like ok if you are 100% dedicated to just thinking about and doing math just about all the time. Otherwise you’re fucked.
Another thing about math is that for most of your math life in school there are prerequisites and if you find yourself in calculus II without taking calculus I, you’re just going to have to double time it. But, at least in the begining of grad school and in some upper division classes it’s more like you’re going back to square one, but in perfect detail this time. Yeah, knowing what is expected of you in doing proofs is a prerequisite, but you’re not going to be resting on a vast accumulation of knowledge.
Later on in grad school that’s not true anymore. You get a broad understanding of lots of important concepts and proofs and it’s a bit like a chess master who doesn’t just know moves, they know all kinds of other people’s entire games. Anyway, my friend and I would often talk to a 1st year grad student who was a smart guy and knew a lot, but there was another guy who was like a 5th year (kind of guy who stays in college forever) and it was night and day. It was like that guy knew everything. The difference between being a math student and a mathematician.
sardines incoming. I think you had said that before and I forgot. I hope I got boneless…checking…damn, skin and bones.
It was pretty gross. It didn’t taste horrible or anything, but I didn’t love it. I dug out the bones (the spines anyway). I couldn’t finish the can and gave about half to my dog. She didn’t think it was gross at all. If I do it again, no skin or bones. Let’s see if I’m even more powerful tomorrow.
Sardines are bigger than I thought. I guess I was thinking of anchovies.
Is that sort of like the opposite of Cantor’s diagonal proof?
I guess it’s a similar method. I didn’t know Cantor’s diagonal proof, but just read it.
What I remembered that was like cassette’s problem was a proof that rational numbers are countable. Every coordinate in the array of sets corresponds to an integer divided by another integer and every combo is in there somewhere and it’s all countable zipping around like that.
Heh, yeah, I was gonna make a joke like “I’ve never studied any higher math, like none, but maybe you can do some diagonal shit like Cantor”… and it turns out that isn’t wrong… just ridiculously vague.
Analogues of the diagonal argument are widely used in mathematics to prove the existence or nonexistence of certain objects. For example, the conventional proof of the unsolvability of the halting problem is essentially a diagonal argument. Also, diagonalization was originally used to show the existence of arbitrarily hard complexity classes and played a key role in early attempts to prove P does not equal NP.
Lol no shit I guess that’s also why that page is called “Cantor’s diagonal argument” and not “Cantor’s crazy infinity bigger than infinity thing” like it is in my head.
Mine too. I was thinking of getting my masters in statistics, but a graduate-level class on stochastic processes during my last year of undergrad was enough to convince me I didn’t have what it takes. I had to beg the professor to let me pass the class after the final so I could just get my bachelor’s degree 
Aww yeah
Lol Wisconsin. I guess all the women getting big boobs by eating too much cheese is a turnoff.
As you may know, there are orders of infinity. The lowest order is (and I’m not going to figure out how to type this) aleph naught, or the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet sub zero. It’s countably infinite and can be mapped to the set of integers. Aleph-one is the next level and so on. I like that they got the Hebrew alphabet in there for something.
Yeah, this is basically identical to the proof that the rational numbers are countably infinite.
Edit: wow, we got some speedy math people here who already made that connection.
On Wednesday, local Tennessee media reported that a hacker broke into a Ring camera installed in the bedroom of three young girls in DeSoto County, Mississippi, and spoke through the device’s speakers with one of the children.
Oh yeah, great idea! A+ parenting there. What could ever go wrong?
And I did not read the story but just guessing that there will be roughly zero consequences for the folks at Ring for this massive breach.
Time after time shit like this happens and the companies are almost never held accountable
You mean installing spy cameras owned and operated by a 3rd party random tech company might be a bad idea? Unpossible.
