Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
sci.math
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Cantor diagonalization and base 2
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Graham Cooper  
View profile  
 More options Oct 9 2012, 4:44 pm
Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.logic, sci.physics
From: Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Oct 9 2012 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Cantor diagonalization and base 2
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Oct 10, 5:37 am, Curlytop <pvstownsend.zyx....@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Graham Cooper set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
> continuum:

> > (snip the bull)

> > f(1) = 0. 314 159 265 ...
> > f(2) = 0. 278 182 845 ...
> > f(3) = 0. 333 333 333 ...
> > f(4) = 0. 123445 54321 ...
> > f(5) = 0. 11 11 11 11 ...
> > ...
> > (nip more bull)

> Every supposed demonstration of Cantor diagonalisation invokes a
> *disordered* subset of the supposedly greater-than-infinite set of all
> reals, as here. If somebody would only put them into some kind of order,
> the absurdity of Cantor's proposition will become immediately apparent to
> all.
> --

Dth digit of the Nth real is UTM(N,D)     (mod 10)

Yes but then you get a logical proof, people like their
*constructable* bigger infinities.

IF you used a FINITE ANTIDIAG() FUNCTION

e.g.
FUNCTION ANTIDIAG( DIAGONAL )
{
   RETURN  DIAGONAL + 0.111111111....

}

Then it would input a HYPERREAL DIAGONAL
(DIAGONAL doesn't appear on any computable row)

     HYPERREAL                   <DIAG>
+   0.1111111111...             <ANTI>
------------------------
=   HYPERREAL                  <MISSING>

i.e. the computable reals list is not missing any computable real.

ALTERNATIVELY

     HYPERREAL              <DIAG>
+   HYPERREAL              <oo ANTI>
------------------------
=   COMPUTABLE           <MISSING>

So EITHER WAY
ANTIDIAG() is FINITE --> no missing computable real
ANTIDIAG() is INFINITE --> no computable missing real

Herc


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google