Is it kill?

true, britfags do it for GCSE statistics

Apart form ultra-autistic topological proofs for "non-topological" questions, I don't think any elaborate set theory has been used to do math (other than set theory) in a long time.
Of course, you want counting arguments that are more general than just being about sets of naturals, and you want "stuff" to do topology with, but as soon as we had the former tools (120 years ago, say) and as soon as topology was "algebra-ized" (80 years ago, say), the questions in set theory became isolated by and for set theory.

yes

Attached: poincare set theory.jpg (850x400, 56K)

>britfags do it for GCSE statistics
wrong

If [math] A\subseteq B [/math] and [math] |A|\geq |B| [/math], then [math] A=B[ /math]
how the fuck do you prove that?

not true, set [math]A = 2\mathbb{Z}, B = \mathbb{Z}[/math]

i very obviously meant for finite sets

Attached: 1515760106305.jpg (392x379, 119K)

Why is that "obvious"? Most sets aren't finite.

Bijection my nigga.

suppose A> B. cardinality)

He is a brainlet, what he thinks is "obvious" shouldn't concern non brainlets.

Suppose otherwise, bijection to the natural numbers, contradiction.