Let us consider Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^n$. We say it is $n$-dimensional because each vector in it is an $n$-tuple $(x_1,...,x_n)$. However, it is possible to represent this exact same space using only a single number by creating a bijection $\mathbb{R}^n\to\mathbb{R}$ (e.g. for $n=3$). Therefore, by the conventional definition of dimension, we must conclude that $\mathbb{R}^n$ is in fact one-dimensional.
How do we resolve this? What is a rigorous definition of dimension?
This question was inspired by this one.
You can resolve this when you notice that any such bijection does not preserve the vector space structure of $\Bbb R^3$. In simpler words, it is not a linear transformation.
(Assuming the axiom of choice, you can find such bijection which preserves the additive structure, and therefore the structure of a vector space over $\Bbb Q$, but never as a vector space over $\Bbb R$.)
The point is that cardinality "shakes off" disregards the structure and only considers the underlying set. But dimension requires structure, so you can't just define the dimension of a set as a vector space or a topological space, without specifying the topology or the vector space structure as well.
What is true is that $\Bbb R$ can be endowed with a $3$-dimensional real vector space structure. But this structure is incompatible with the usual structure of $\Bbb R$ as an ordered field.