Talk:Beth two

Cyp: Yes, that was supposed to be an Aleph. Mozilla renders it as one, too. :) -- schnee

Actually, schnee, your character is the correct one. Unicode makes a clear distinction between Hebrew letters and the mathematical symbols that are based on them -- and Cyp found out why when he had to add the directional codes! If people can't see the symbols, then we should just replace them with images. -- Toby Bartels 11:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't see the mathematical version, so changed it to the letter version. I don't know what the mathematical versions look like compared to the letter versions, so it's probably better for someone that can see what they look like to make images. &#922;&#963;&#965;&#960; Cyp    14:48, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that equation (*) necessarily implies CH - could you not have (*) and $$2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_2$$?

Duh. never mind. I'm stupid today. If $$\beth_2 = \aleph_2$$ then of course $$\beth_1 = \aleph_1$$. Oops.

Merge into Beth Numbers
Is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged into Beth numbers? Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't see a reason. Anything here seems to be pretty much covered there, so the merge should be a cinch. In fact, after taking care of the pages linking here, I think a may be the way to go. This talk page is no loss. Lambiam Talk  17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Merged. Please take a look, if anyone has this page on their watch list.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)