Well, to understand an explanation one must already know something, otherwise first you have to explain those other things, e.g. the simple fact that unlike the reals the set of rational numbers is countable…
How so? Even a real interval of a finite length cannot be covered by any set of intervals of a smaller total length. (Unless the person you are trying to explain this to starts raising questions about the meaning of 'interval' or 'length', in which case the meaning of the original question becomes just as uncertain in the first place.)
Comments
Well, to understand an explanation one must already know something, otherwise first you have to explain those other things, e.g. the simple fact that unlike the reals the set of rational numbers is countable…
Cardinality hasn’t much to do with it since there are uncountable sets which you may cover like that.
Sure, but for countable subsets (such as the rationals) it is easy to show.
Sure. Explaining what’s different about the reals is the hard part
How so? Even a real interval of a finite length cannot be covered by any set of intervals of a smaller total length. (Unless the person you are trying to explain this to starts raising questions about the meaning of 'interval' or 'length', in which case the meaning of the original question becomes just as uncertain in the first place.)
You’ve only restated the problem without saying _why_ covering the reals is different.
Because the 'intervals' in question are already 'real'?