222 views

Skip to first unread message

Sep 11, 2022, 2:48:42 PMSep 11

to

I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The logic of his proofs has some weaknesses. I propose an axiom and a solution to continuum hypothesis.

The main idea is:

Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

This assumption means R=L, considering L as a set. This makes the claim “a real number is created but is not in the list L” wrong. Indeed, if a number is outside L, it is outside R too. So, the statement “the created real number is not in the list L” means it is not in R and is not a real number, which is equivalent to claim that a real number is not real number. This is absurd but Cantor’s diagonal argument and nested intervals proof both claim that a real number is not in the list L and thus, is not a real number, which make them wrong.

On the other hand, Cantor's both proofs search for contradiction. Can “this real number is not a real number” be the contradiction? No. The contradiction of the proofs is in the third step: sout “is not in the list”. By failing to create sout the second step collapses before the third step declares the contradiction.

See the paper

https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

Kuan Peng

The main idea is:

Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

This assumption means R=L, considering L as a set. This makes the claim “a real number is created but is not in the list L” wrong. Indeed, if a number is outside L, it is outside R too. So, the statement “the created real number is not in the list L” means it is not in R and is not a real number, which is equivalent to claim that a real number is not real number. This is absurd but Cantor’s diagonal argument and nested intervals proof both claim that a real number is not in the list L and thus, is not a real number, which make them wrong.

On the other hand, Cantor's both proofs search for contradiction. Can “this real number is not a real number” be the contradiction? No. The contradiction of the proofs is in the third step: sout “is not in the list”. By failing to create sout the second step collapses before the third step declares the contradiction.

See the paper

https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

Kuan Peng

Sep 11, 2022, 3:59:35 PMSep 11

to

Sep 11, 2022, 4:34:47 PMSep 11

to

PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

> I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The

> logic of his proofs has some weaknesses.

I think you should revire the proof because it is not at all the proof
> I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The

> logic of his proofs has some weaknesses.

you think it is.

> I propose an axiom and a

> solution to continuum hypothesis.

>

> The main idea is:

> Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list

> (list L).

>

> This assumption means R=L, considering L as a set.

It's a set of pairs {(1, r_1), (2, r_2), ...}, so R=L is a bit sloppy.

You mean R=image(L) (sometimes written L(N) since the image is set of

values of L over N).

> This makes the claim “a real number is created but is not in the list

> L” wrong.

image. From any list, a real can be constructed that is not in the

list.

> Indeed, if a number is outside L, it is outside R too.

the purpose of showing that assumption to be false. But the

construction is always of a real number. Just not one in the list it

was constructed from.

--

Ben.

Sep 11, 2022, 6:26:30 PMSep 11

to

PK

Sep 11, 2022, 6:38:59 PMSep 11

to

Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 22:34:47 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

> PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

>

> > I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The

> > logic of his proofs has some weaknesses.

> I think you should revire the proof because it is not at all the proof

> you think it is.

I have explained in the paper where maybe you will find it more correct.
> PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

>

> > I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The

> > logic of his proofs has some weaknesses.

> I think you should revire the proof because it is not at all the proof

> you think it is.

> > I propose an axiom and a

> > solution to continuum hypothesis.

> >

> > The main idea is:

> > Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list

> > (list L).

> >

> > This assumption means R=L, considering L as a set.

> A list of reals is a function (indeed a bijection) between N and R.

> It's a set of pairs {(1, r_1), (2, r_2), ...}, so R=L is a bit sloppy.

> You mean R=image(L) (sometimes written L(N) since the image is set of

> values of L over N).

> > This makes the claim “a real number is created but is not in the list

> > L” wrong.

> How? The proof is that no list (no bijection from N to R) has R as it's

> image. From any list, a real can be constructed that is not in the

> list.

> > Indeed, if a number is outside L, it is outside R too.

> Some authors (rather pointlessly) assume that R=image(L) for some L for

> the purpose of showing that assumption to be false. But the

> construction is always of a real number. Just not one in the list it

> was constructed from.

>

> --

> Ben.

Let us explain this logical hole with a simple example. Let N3 = {2, 3, 1} be the set of all integers smaller than 4. Let L3 = {1, 2, 3} be a list of all the members of N3. We propose to create an integer in N3 which is not in L3. Suppose that we have created 5, but 5 is not in N3. The hole in this reasoning is that the created integer can only be 1 or 2 or 3 and then, it must be in L3. In conclusion, a member of N3 cannot be out of the list L3.

Also, a list of all the n-bits contains 2^n members, but they have only n bit. The constructed number is created with n numbers only, because of the diagonal. So, the constructed number is not in the first n number, but is in the remaining 2^n-n members of the list. when n goes to infinity, this is always true.

I have explained this in detail in the paper.

PK

Sep 11, 2022, 7:16:43 PMSep 11

to

PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

> Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 22:34:47 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

>> PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

>>

>> > I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The

>> > logic of his proofs has some weaknesses.

>> I think you should revire the proof because it is not at all the proof

>> you think it is.

>

> I have explained in the paper where maybe you will find it more

> correct.

I read sci.logic. If you can't explain here, that's fine. I wish you
> Le dimanche 11 septembre 2022 à 22:34:47 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

>> PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

>>

>> > I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The

>> > logic of his proofs has some weaknesses.

>> I think you should revire the proof because it is not at all the proof

>> you think it is.

>

> I have explained in the paper where maybe you will find it more

> correct.

luck and I'll read you published paper (you know, properly published)

when it comes out.

>> > I propose an axiom and a

>> > solution to continuum hypothesis.

>> >

>> > The main idea is:

>> > Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list

>> > (list L).

>> >

>> > This assumption means R=L, considering L as a set.

>> A list of reals is a function (indeed a bijection) between N and R.

>> It's a set of pairs {(1, r_1), (2, r_2), ...}, so R=L is a bit sloppy.

>> You mean R=image(L) (sometimes written L(N) since the image is set of

>> values of L over N).

>

> I mean that when seeing L as only the set of it members, L have the

> same members than R.

correctly. But no L can't "have the same members" as R. If anyone

assumes it does, it is simply to show that assumption leads to a

contradiction.

>> > This makes the claim “a real number is created but is not in the list

>> > L” wrong.

>> How? The proof is that no list (no bijection from N to R) has R as it's

>> image. From any list, a real can be constructed that is not in the

>> list.

>

> This is what Cantor said. But if L=R, then if r (real number) is not

> in L it is not in R.

> I have constructed a list L in my paper

how you think it is not possible to construct, from your L, an r in R

such that r not in image(L). (But from what you say below, you don't

know enough about R to understand the proof you claim to be

undermining.)

> I have cited this example in my paper:

> Let us explain this logical hole with a simple example. Let N3 = {2,

> 3, 1} be the set of all integers smaller than 4. Let L3 = {1, 2, 3} be

> a list of all the members of N3. We propose to create an integer in N3

> which is not in L3. Suppose that we have created 5, but 5 is not in

> N3. The hole in this reasoning is that the created integer can only be

> 1 or 2 or 3 and then, it must be in L3. In conclusion, a member of N3

> cannot be out of the list L3.

less that 4) does not have the key property. R is closed under taking

the least upper bound, that means that any countable list of reals can

be used to construct a real not in the list.

I find it extraordinary that people who don't know much about a subject

feel empowered to claim that others have got it all wrong. You don't

know the key property that distinguishes R from, say, Q but you don't

let that hold you back. And I am 100% sure that someone telling you

that you are missing a key fact won't make you go and read about how R

is defined. You'll just keep posting the same stuff.

> Also, a list of all the n-bits contains 2^n members, but they have

> only n bit. The constructed number is created with n numbers only,

> because of the diagonal. So, the constructed number is not in the

> first n number, but is in the remaining 2^n-n members of the

> list. when n goes to infinity, this is always true.

> I have explained this in detail in the paper.

--

Ben.

Sep 11, 2022, 7:45:04 PMSep 11

to

Define a function with domain natural integers and range [0,1],

i.e. that is 1-1, and onto, from N to R[0,1].

I describe a reductio where an example is defined,

then what are its mathematical properties.

Then also there's apologetics to explain why Cantor's otherwise

theorem(s) don't apply, i.e. why it's a "counterexample",

that otherwise Cantor provides any number of "examples",

of an element not on his list.

Here my usual examples are f(n) = n/d, d->oo, n->d,

then a in the space of the signal domain, point out

what is the usual abstract source of reconstruction,

with a doubling space and an infinite domain.

Simply though it's particularly that one counterexample

there, or, "sweep", these days about writing same in

generalized functions and modeling functions as

limts of standard functions. (Much simpler geometrically.)

This is the most sort of glaring example, but it's apologetics

that all functions in Cantor's theory are Cartesian, this is not.

So, Ross Finlayson wrote it.

Sep 11, 2022, 8:01:49 PMSep 11

to

MISunderstanding is not going to help."?

--

Jeff Barnett

Sep 11, 2022, 8:09:52 PMSep 11

to

reverse the meaning are bad!

--

Ben.

Message has been deleted

Sep 11, 2022, 8:20:31 PMSep 11

to

On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:48:42 PM UTC+2, tita...@gmail.com wrote:

> The main idea is:

> Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

Actually, there is no need to assume that. Moreover Cantor never proved anything in this way.
> The main idea is:

> Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

It suffices to consider an arbitrary subset L c IR. If we assume that L is countable, we can prove that there is a number r e IR which is not in L. Case closed.

It seems to me that you do not understand indirect proofs (proofs by contradiction). Hence the approach mentioned above should be less problematic for you.

Note the differences marked with "[...]":

> This assumption means R = L,

We don't start with that assumption. (See comment above.) Hence our approach

> [doesn't make] the claim “a real number is [defined which] is not in the [set] L” wrong.

> if a [real] number is outside [of] L, it is [just] outside [of L].

> So, the statement “the [defined] real number is not in the [set] L” [just] means it is not in [the set L]

> [Now the] claim that a [real] number [that's not in L] is not [in L] is [not] absurd [but a tautology].

> Cantor’s diagonal argument [...] [shows/proves] that [there is] a real number [which] is not in [the set] L

Right.

Actually, the argument is quite simple.

Sep 11, 2022, 10:20:08 PMSep 11

to

On 11/09/2022 19:48, PengKuan Em wrote:

> I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The logic of his proofs has some weaknesses. I propose an axiom and a solution to continuum hypothesis.

>

> The main idea is:

> Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

>

> This assumption means R=L, considering L as a set.

I think you're not really familiar with everyday set theory, where "lists", "functions",
> I do a detailed analysis of Cantor’s theory of uncountable sets. The logic of his proofs has some weaknesses. I propose an axiom and a solution to continuum hypothesis.

>

> The main idea is:

> Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

>

> This assumption means R=L, considering L as a set.

"countability" etc. are formally defined.

A better (for mathematicians) way of saying what you try to say in your PDF is:

Set R is the set of all real numbers.

List L is [by definition of "list"] a function N: --> R, and its range is (precisely) the whole of

R. In this post I use N for set of natural numbers {1,2,3,...}

It's also ok to summarise L as something like "assume L is an enumeration of R" or "L is a list

containing all members of R", but you have to understand that they are all saying the same thing - L

is actually a function mapping N to R! (And hence L =/= R )

Sets are not a priori ordered, and L is not simply the same set as R - it has a "function"

structure. Mostly mathematicians define functions (using set theory) as sets of ordered pairs, so

function f is the set { (x, f(x)) : x in domain of f}

I understand what you mean, however. I would say R = Range(L). This is not the biggest problem

with your paper, but your paper very early on (before L is introduced) says:

R = {r_1, r_2, r_3, ...}, i in N, r_i in R, [1]

so you are already pre-assuming that R is countable! R cannot be written in this form, as shown by

Cantor's argument. (If nothing else, this alerts readers to the lack of maths background of the

author, and primes them to expect a flurry of similar basic level mistakes... i.e. although they

don't say it out loud, they're already thinking "duffer"? You only get 3 strikes and you're out! :) )

Your paper should just say R = set of real numbers, define L by one of the wordings I used, and

conclude R = Range(L).

> This makes the claim “a real number is created but is not in the list L” wrong. Indeed, if a number is outside L, it is outside R too. So, the statement “the created real number is not in the list L” means it is not in R and is not a real number, which is equivalent to claim that a real number is not real number. This is absurd but Cantor’s diagonal argument and nested intervals proof both claim that a real number is not in the list L and thus, is not a real number, which make them wrong.

contradiction, but maybe it's more subtle.

Quote from paper:

1. Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

2. sflip is created with the diagonal construction and is a real number.

3. sflip is not in the list, contradicting thus the Assumption A.

4. Conclusion: the set of all real numbers cannot be put into a list.

So Assumption A is where we ASSUME the existence of the list L above. L is not "constructed", just

assumed to exist, i.e. we ASSUME there is a function L: N --> R with Range(L) = R.

The point is that HAVING ASSUMED assumption A, IT FOLLOWS by solid logic, that what you call sflip

IS NOT in Range(L), AND ALSO that s_flip IS in R.

Above (and in your paper) you're saying the claim is "wrong", and "absurd" - but the claim is

logically valid GIVEN THE ASSUMPTION A. There is nothing "wrong" with the /argument/ in the proof!

It has just derived a contradiction from assumption A. Therefore we conclude assumption A is false.

That is the pattern for all proof by contradiction, and it's clear in your paper you are horribly

confused by this - but it's one of the most common proof patterns. Nobody claims that it is TRUE

that sflip is both in R and not in R. The only claim is that IF ASSUMPTION A WERE TRUE, then it

would follow that sflip is both in R and not in R. But assumption A is in fact not true, so no

problem. (Unless you just don't accept proof by contradiction...)

Hmm, also you use the word "created" for sflip. sflip is /constructed/ from L, and was always in

the set R (which contains ALL real numbers), so "created" is a bad choice of words - hopefully

that's just a language issue, not a real misunderstanding.

> On the other hand, Cantor's both proofs search for contradiction. Can “this real number is not a real number” be the contradiction? No.

assumption, there will be MANY possible contradiction statements that we could derive - deriving any

one of them is sufficient to reject the original assumption.

> The contradiction of the proofs is in the third step: sout “is not in the list”.

it's not a real number. And yet step 2 ensures it is in R: contradiction! Any contradiction we

can deduce from the starting assumption suffices equally well.

> By failing to create sout the second step collapses before the third step declares the contradiction.

construction by its nature guarantees sflip is a real number. [...under the assumption A, of course...]

You just don't understand how proof by contradiction works.

Mike.

Sep 11, 2022, 10:52:56 PMSep 11

to

Sep 11, 2022, 10:59:01 PMSep 11

to

here there is only antidiagonal then that the function is only

defined while the antidiagonal is at the end, where it goes.

It's always so contrived that, ....

Assume you have an antidiagonal algorithm,

but the equivalency function already has exactly one,

an antidiagonal algorithm, and its end isn't missing.

Apply to nested intervals, no worries there,

it's a counterexample to the existence.

All, proofs by contradiction, where "the diagonal argument",

is, ..., not constructive in the manner of not being the usual

deliberative constructible, the proof by contradiction.

Funny that in a formalist's world such an intuitionist notion

is what for formalists should be all "profound".

"Hodges' hopeless" is the usual collection of unsound arguments

against uncountability, or rather for the countable.

Sep 11, 2022, 11:29:59 PMSep 11

to

Basically, PKE constructs finite length lists of all n bit binary numbers. PKE correctly observes

that the sflip construction (on just the first n entries) constructs a number beyond the first n

entries. So far so good!

Then the "magic": [note: m=2^n, where n is the number of bits]

----- quote:

When m increases indefinitely to reach infinity, we write m=∞ and the number of bits equals

log_2(∞), see (9). In this case, the numbers f_i in Table 3 will have infinitely many bits because

log_1(∞) is the numbers of bits. Then f_i become the real numbers ri, which equal 0.b1b2b3 …, see

(10). Equation (10) is in fact (6) with n=∞.

----- endquote

so, no list is actually constructed! It's just a series of examples of finite lists - and even

these are presented in what looks like random order - followed by a "now let n=∞" suggestion.

The conclusion is also just trying to state the conclusion above for n (correct for finite n)

changing n or m to ∞ :

----- quote:

The flipped number for ri is named rflip and equals fflip with m=∞. rflip is a real number but does

not equal any number of the first list Llog2(∞), which respects Cantor’s diagonal argument. But the

list L∞ being longer than Llog2(∞), we would find rflip at the position log2(∞)+p, rflip =

rlog2(∞)+p. So, rflip belongs to the list L∞, see Table 4.

----- endquote

sort of like saying sflip IS a real number, and its not entry 1 in the list, nor entry 2,3,4,5,6,...

but it IS still there in the list at some entry beyond all the entries indexed by all those finite

numbers in N. (IIUC)

Umm, obviously there are no entries in the list beyond those indexed by one of 1,2,3,4,5.... I

don't think PKE is going to be convinced by anything anyone says here.

Mike.

Sep 12, 2022, 9:44:37 AMSep 12

to

Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

> Above (and in your paper) you're saying the claim is "wrong", and

> "absurd" - but the claim is logically valid GIVEN THE ASSUMPTION A.

> There is nothing "wrong" with the /argument/ in the proof! It has

> just derived a contradiction from assumption A. Therefore we conclude

> assumption A is false.

Proof by contradiction seems to trip lots of people up, and it's
> Above (and in your paper) you're saying the claim is "wrong", and

> "absurd" - but the claim is logically valid GIVEN THE ASSUMPTION A.

> There is nothing "wrong" with the /argument/ in the proof! It has

> just derived a contradiction from assumption A. Therefore we conclude

> assumption A is false.

annoying that it's so often used for this theorem because it's absolutely

not needed. It is simple to prove that for any L: N -> R, there is an r

in R not in range(L).

Proof by contradiction goes

Exists X such that X is what we want

-> bad things happen -> ~Exists X such that X is what we want

where the direct version is just a proof that

For all X, X is not what we want

(from which "~Exists X such that X is what want" follows, but it often

unsaid.)

--

Ben.

Sep 12, 2022, 12:40:59 PMSep 12

to

On 12/09/2022 14:44, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

>

>> Above (and in your paper) you're saying the claim is "wrong", and

>> "absurd" - but the claim is logically valid GIVEN THE ASSUMPTION A.

>> There is nothing "wrong" with the /argument/ in the proof! It has

>> just derived a contradiction from assumption A. Therefore we conclude

>> assumption A is false.

>

> Proof by contradiction seems to trip lots of people up, and it's

> annoying that it's so often used for this theorem because it's absolutely

> not needed. It is simple to prove that for any L: N -> R, there is an r

> in R not in range(L).

>

> Proof by contradiction goes

>

> Exists X such that X is what we want

> -> bad things happen -> ~Exists X such that X is what we want

>

Just to be devil's advocate, I like this, because what we actually want to prove is
> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

>

>> Above (and in your paper) you're saying the claim is "wrong", and

>> "absurd" - but the claim is logically valid GIVEN THE ASSUMPTION A.

>> There is nothing "wrong" with the /argument/ in the proof! It has

>> just derived a contradiction from assumption A. Therefore we conclude

>> assumption A is false.

>

> Proof by contradiction seems to trip lots of people up, and it's

> annoying that it's so often used for this theorem because it's absolutely

> not needed. It is simple to prove that for any L: N -> R, there is an r

> in R not in range(L).

>

> Proof by contradiction goes

>

> Exists X such that X is what we want

> -> bad things happen -> ~Exists X such that X is what we want

>

Not (exists X such that...)

and to prove a "not anything..." it is natural to assume the negative and reach a contradiction.

I know from many of your posts that you (mildly?) dislike this for some reason, or at least believe

your alternative is better, but I don't /really/ get it. (I get that you can do argue a different

way, but not why so many seem to consider that to be preferable, as though there's an unspoken

/flaw/ in proof by contradiction. TBC I've no objection to the other way of arguing.)

> where the direct version is just a proof that

>

> For all X, X is not what we want

>

> (from which "~Exists X such that X is what want" follows, but it often

> unsaid.)

>

from "For all X, X is not what we want"? Probably something like:

Assume Exists x such that x is what we want.

Then some individual m has the properties we want. [existential um whatnot]

Then from the hypothesis, m does not have the properties we want. [universal instantiation]

Contradiction, hence not (Exists X which is what we want)

Of course we can just say "it's a basic law of logic", but that's just a way of side-stepping the

natural semantic justification which is a proof by contradiction. Or so it seems to me (but what do

I know!?). Bottom line for me I suppose is that I consider it a total non-issue. :) [Same with HP

proof starting by assuming there exists a halt decider...] And surely proof by contradiction is

something every student HAS to get to grips with at some point? So if there's a problem, best to

confront it head on and sort it.

Mike.

Sep 12, 2022, 12:52:17 PMSep 12

to

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:40:59 PM UTC+2, Mike Terry wrote:

> I know from many of your posts that you (mildly?) dislike this for some reason, or at least believe

> your alternative is better, but I don't /really/ get it. (I get that you can do argue a different

> way, but not why so many seem to consider that to be preferable, as though there's an unspoken

> /flaw/ in proof by contradiction.

I'd say the idea is that the direct proof is "constructive". Given any countable subset S of IR we can "construct" a real number d which is not in S. Concerning your comment above, especially see (*) below.
> I know from many of your posts that you (mildly?) dislike this for some reason, or at least believe

> your alternative is better, but I don't /really/ get it. (I get that you can do argue a different

> way, but not why so many seem to consider that to be preferable, as though there's an unspoken

> /flaw/ in proof by contradiction.

"A proof is nonconstructive if it asserts the existence of some object without actually constructing or finding that object. Such proofs are used freely in mainstream ("classical") mathematics. Constructivism is the practice of avoiding such proofs or at least pointing them out explicitly. Different philosophical views lead to different kinds of constructivism:

- A mathematician who accepts nonconstructive proofs may nevertheless prefer constructive ones when available, because they are more informative. Indeed, most mathematicians are part-time constructivists, at least in this respect: When we are teaching, we try to illustrate abstract concepts with concrete examples. (*)

- On the other hand, some mathematicians consider all nonconstructive proofs unacceptable, for philosophical reasons. At issue are the meaning of "existence" of an object and the meaning of "proof" of a statement."

Source: https://math.vanderbilt.edu/schectex/papers/difficult.pdf

Sep 12, 2022, 1:04:28 PMSep 12

to

Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 01:16:43 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

> PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

> > I mean that when seeing L as only the set of it members, L have the

> > same members than R.

> PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

> > I mean that when seeing L as only the set of it members, L have the

> > same members than R.

> But no L can't "have the same members" as R. If anyone

> assumes it does, it is simply to show that assumption leads to a

> contradiction.

You think that you have the right to say “But no L can't have the same members as R”. However, you don’t because “L can't have the same members as R” is the result of Cantor's nested intervals proof and diagonal argument. In our case, we are discussing whether Cantor is right or wrong. So, we have to discuss on the ground where Cantor’s nested intervals proof and diagonal argument do not exist.
> assumes it does, it is simply to show that assumption leads to a

> contradiction.

If you use “L can't have the same members as R”, then you are saying:

Because “Cantor is right”, then “L can't have the same members as R”, so “Cantor is right”. This is cycling argument which is a logical fallacy.

So, starting from the ground where Cantor does not exist, I can assume “L has the same members as R”, then derive what its consequence is. So, the derivation below is correct in logic :

Assumption: “L has the same members as R”.

r being not in L, then r is not in R because of the assumption.

> > This is what Cantor said. But if L=R, then if r (real number) is not

> > in L it is not in R.

> Yes, but L =/= R for all L. Assuming something does not make it so.

“Assuming something does not make it so”. Yes, Assumption is only the first step of the proof by contradiction.

> > I have constructed a list L in my paper

> This is called burying the lede! You should start with this and explain

> how you think it is not possible to construct, from your L, an r in R

> such that r not in image(L). (But from what you say below, you don't

> know enough about R to understand the proof you claim to be

> undermining.)

On the ground where Cantor does not exist, on have the right to construct the list L because the set R is not proven uncountable.
> This is called burying the lede! You should start with this and explain

> how you think it is not possible to construct, from your L, an r in R

> such that r not in image(L). (But from what you say below, you don't

> know enough about R to understand the proof you claim to be

> undermining.)

> > I have cited this example in my paper:

> This is a pointless analogy because N (and specifically the subset of N

> less that 4) does not have the key property. R is closed under taking

> the least upper bound, that means that any countable list of reals can

> be used to construct a real not in the list.

Why does “R is closed under taking the least upper bound” implies “any countable list of reals can be used to construct a real not in the list”?
> less that 4) does not have the key property. R is closed under taking

> the least upper bound, that means that any countable list of reals can

> be used to construct a real not in the list.

I put the link to my paper just in case where someone need it.

https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

Sep 12, 2022, 2:23:42 PMSep 12

to

Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 01:16:43 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

> This is a pointless analogy because N (and specifically the subset of N

> less that 4) does not have the key property. R is closed under taking

> the least upper bound, that means that any countable list of reals can

> be used to construct a real not in the list.

> --
> This is a pointless analogy because N (and specifically the subset of N

> less that 4) does not have the key property. R is closed under taking

> the least upper bound, that means that any countable list of reals can

> be used to construct a real not in the list.

> Ben.

Cantor’s diagonal argument is a proof by contradiction which we summarize as the 4 steps deduction below:

1. Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

2. sflip is created with the diagonal construction and is a real number.

3. sflip is not in the list, contradicting thus the Assumption A.

4. Conclusion: the set of all real numbers cannot be put into a list.

Under the assumption “all real numbers are in L”, L includes R
2. sflip is created with the diagonal construction and is a real number.

3. sflip is not in the list, contradicting thus the Assumption A.

4. Conclusion: the set of all real numbers cannot be put into a list.

Every real number is necessarily member of L.

So, real number that is out of the list L does not exist under the assumption.

Under the assumption, real number that is out of the list L cannot be constructed.

Cantor constructs 0.(flipped bits) from a list Ld

0.(flipped bits) is a real number.

Because the bits are flipped, 0.(flipped bits) is not in the list from which 0.(flipped bits) is constructed, Ld

Is Ld the list L mentioned by the Assumption?

0.(flipped bits) is not in Ld. On the other hand, 0.(flipped bits) is a real number and thus, under the assumption, is in the list L.

Because 0.(flipped bits) is in L, 0.(flipped bits) is not in Ld:

Ld is not L.

The assumption about L is not contradicted by the result about Ld. That is, “0.(flipped bits) is not in Ld” is not against “0.(flipped bits) is in L”. As 0.(flipped bits) can be in L, Cantor’s proofs fail.

I put the link to my paper just in case where someone want to read it.

https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

Sep 12, 2022, 2:49:05 PMSep 12

to

Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 01:45:04 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson a écrit :

> Can you provide two counterexamples?

>

> Define a function with domain natural integers and range [0,1],

> i.e. that is 1-1, and onto, from N to R[0,1].

>

I gave this example:
> Can you provide two counterexamples?

>

> Define a function with domain natural integers and range [0,1],

> i.e. that is 1-1, and onto, from N to R[0,1].

>

(all natural numbers with n bits from 0 up to 2^n,) /2^n, n>oo.

Which is a function N to R[0,1] , in my paper section 4.b

https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

I have also given (all n-digits natural numbers) /10^n, n>oo in

https://www.academia.edu/23155464/Cardinality_of_the_set_of_decimal_numbers

>

> Then also there's apologetics to explain why Cantor's otherwise

> theorem(s) don't apply, i.e. why it's a "counterexample",

> that otherwise Cantor provides any number of "examples",

> of an element not on his list.

>

> So, Ross Finlayson wrote it.

I have just given this in this thread.
Cantor’s diagonal argument is a proof by contradiction which we summarize as the 4 steps deduction below:

1. Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

2. sflip is created with the diagonal construction and is a real number.

3. sflip is not in the list, contradicting thus the Assumption A.

4. Conclusion: the set of all real numbers cannot be put into a list.

Under the assumption “all real numbers are in L”, L includes R

Every real number is necessarily member of L.

So, real number that is out of the list L does not exist under the assumption.

Under the assumption, real number that is out of the list L cannot be constructed.

Cantor constructs 0.(flipped bits) from a list Ld

0.(flipped bits) is a real number.

Because the bits are flipped, 0.(flipped bits) is not in the list from which 0.(flipped bits) is constructed, Ld

Is Ld the list L mentioned by the Assumption?

0.(flipped bits) is not in Ld. On the other hand, 0.(flipped bits) is a real number and thus, under the assumption, is in the list L.

Because 0.(flipped bits) is in L, 0.(flipped bits) is not in Ld:

Ld is not L.

PK

Sep 12, 2022, 2:54:20 PMSep 12

to

Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 02:20:31 UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase a écrit :

> On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:48:42 PM UTC+2, wrote:

>

> > The main idea is:

> > Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

> Actually, there is no need to assume that. Moreover Cantor never proved anything in this way.

>

> It suffices to consider an arbitrary subset L c IR. If we assume that L is countable, we can prove that there is a number r e IR which is not in L. Case closed.

>

> > The main idea is:

> > Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

> Actually, there is no need to assume that. Moreover Cantor never proved anything in this way.

>

> It suffices to consider an arbitrary subset L c IR. If we assume that L is countable, we can prove that there is a number r e IR which is not in L. Case closed.

I have just given this in this thread

Sep 12, 2022, 2:58:00 PMSep 12

to

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 7:04:28 PM UTC+2, tita...@gmail.com wrote:

> So, starting from the ground [...] I can assume “L has the same members as R”, then derive [a contradiction].

Right - almost. If L is a "list" (in mathematical terms a /sequence/) then the assumption would be that there exists a sequence (L_n)_(n e IN) of real numbers such that for all r e IR there is (exactly) an n e IN such that r = L_n.

> So, the derivation below is correct in logic :

> Assumption: “L has the same members as R”.

If you can find (construct/define) an r0 e IR such that there is no n e IN with r0 = L_n then this implies a contradiction, since from our ASSUMPTION we get that for all r e IR there is (exactly) an n e IN such that r = L_n.

> Yes, [the] assumption is only the first step of the proof by contradiction.

Indeed! Now we can derive a contradiction! See comment above.

Go figure!

> So, starting from the ground [...] I can assume “L has the same members as R”, then derive [a contradiction].

Right - almost. If L is a "list" (in mathematical terms a /sequence/) then the assumption would be that there exists a sequence (L_n)_(n e IN) of real numbers such that for all r e IR there is (exactly) an n e IN such that r = L_n.

> So, the derivation below is correct in logic :

> Assumption: “L has the same members as R”.

> Yes, [the] assumption is only the first step of the proof by contradiction.

Indeed! Now we can derive a contradiction! See comment above.

Go figure!

Sep 12, 2022, 2:58:28 PMSep 12

to

On 12/09/2022 17:52, Fritz Feldhase wrote:

> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:40:59 PM UTC+2, Mike Terry wrote:

>

>> I know from many of your posts that you (mildly?) dislike this for some reason, or at least believe

>> your alternative is better, but I don't /really/ get it. (I get that you can do argue a different

>> way, but not why so many seem to consider that to be preferable, as though there's an unspoken

>> /flaw/ in proof by contradiction.

>

> I'd say the idea is that the direct proof is "constructive". Given any countable subset S of IR we can "construct" a real number d which is not in S. Concerning your comment above, especially see (*) below.

>

> "A proof is nonconstructive if it asserts the existence of some object without actually constructing or finding that object. Such proofs are used freely in mainstream ("classical") mathematics. Constructivism is the practice of avoiding such proofs or at least pointing them out explicitly. Different philosophical views lead to different kinds of constructivism:

>

So... in our case we're looking to prove that there is no X meeting our requirements; a statement of
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 6:40:59 PM UTC+2, Mike Terry wrote:

>

>> I know from many of your posts that you (mildly?) dislike this for some reason, or at least believe

>> your alternative is better, but I don't /really/ get it. (I get that you can do argue a different

>> way, but not why so many seem to consider that to be preferable, as though there's an unspoken

>> /flaw/ in proof by contradiction.

>

> I'd say the idea is that the direct proof is "constructive". Given any countable subset S of IR we can "construct" a real number d which is not in S. Concerning your comment above, especially see (*) below.

>

> "A proof is nonconstructive if it asserts the existence of some object without actually constructing or finding that object. Such proofs are used freely in mainstream ("classical") mathematics. Constructivism is the practice of avoiding such proofs or at least pointing them out explicitly. Different philosophical views lead to different kinds of constructivism:

>

the form ¬∃x P(x). So how would a constructive proof of this go?

I'll suggest it would be along the lines of demonstrating that a proof of P(a) leads to a

contradiction. I.e. that ASSUMING P(a) [..has been proved..] we can make further [constructively

acceptable] proof steps to reach a contradiction.

That's exactly what happens when we assume L is a list covering all of R, then use it to CONSTRUCT

the sflip number which is proved missing from L. Of course, we haven't "constructed" L which is

effectively given, but we can argue constructively from its existence to reach the required

contradiction.

Well, I may have got all the above wrong as I'm not a constructivist. I think it would be the

position taken by an intuitionist at least, but I may well have got wrong too, as it's just the

result of background reading from many years ago. [I would genuinely be interested in how such

proofs are handled by constructivists, from some reasonably definitive source rather than people

just saying what they imagine.]

Bottom line is I'm not a constructivist, and I don't think the people frowning at "proof by

contradiction" proofs, instead prefering e.g. "given any list of elements of R we can find an

element not in the list" are constructivists! So I'm doubting whether that's really what's going on

here...

> - A mathematician who accepts nonconstructive proofs may nevertheless prefer constructive ones when available, because they are more informative. Indeed, most mathematicians are part-time constructivists, at least in this respect: When we are teaching, we try to illustrate abstract concepts with concrete examples. (*)

leaving you feeling uninformed, where a longer constructive (or more "direct") proof seems to give a

better understanding.

An example would be where we come to proofs of Halting Problem (no TM decides Halting). Books like

Linz often give the "usual" proof where H is assumed to be a halt decider, and the proof constructs

from H a new TM H_Hat and proves that H incorrectly decides the input (<H_Hat>, <H_Hat>). Of

course, we have the same issue here as to whether this kind of proof is "constructive" given that

existence of H is merely assumed within the proof as a working hypothesis, but the construction of

H_Hat from H is a concrete set of steps that can be applied to any decider H, and the proof is

constructive in that sense. So for students I'd say the proof is informative, and "convinving" in

the sense you were referring to.

In contrast, Linz also gives a quicker proof, based on a proof that there exists a recursively

enumerable language which is not decideable (its complement is not recursively enumerable). Well

this is fine, I agree, and having done the pre-req work it is shorter. But I imagine to many it

seems to lack the convincing "constructive" demonstration provided by the "usual" H/H_Hat proof. I

actually don't know whether this second proof is constructive!! (I suspect not, but if it is, there

would need to be a fair bit of careful unwinding of proofs and definitions to properly convince me.

And as I'm not a constructivist there's not much motivation for me to investigate this...)

So which HP proof is "better"? I accept both and can see different merits in each. I would expect

students get more from the "constructive" style H/H_Hat proof at least on first meeting them, but

I'm really just guessing there.

>

> - On the other hand, some mathematicians consider all nonconstructive proofs unacceptable, for philosophical reasons. At issue are the meaning of "existence" of an object and the meaning of "proof" of a statement."

>

> Source: https://math.vanderbilt.edu/schectex/papers/difficult.pdf

>

considered "finitary" and exactly why that is. All seems slightly wooly to me! :) Perhaps it's

better to just get on with doing maths rather than talking about doing it, hehe.

Mike.

Sep 12, 2022, 3:03:12 PMSep 12

to

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 8:54:20 PM UTC+2, tita...@gmail.com wrote:

> Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 02:20:31 UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase a écrit :

> > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:48:42 PM UTC+2, wrote:

> >

> > > The main idea is:

> > > Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

> Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 02:20:31 UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase a écrit :

> > On Sunday, September 11, 2022 at 8:48:42 PM UTC+2, wrote:

> >

> > > The main idea is:

> > > Assumption of Cantor’s proofs: All real numbers (set R) are in a list (list L).

I SAID:

> > Actually, there is no need to assume that. Moreover Cantor never proved anything in this way.

> >

> > It suffices to consider an arbitrary subset L c IR. If we assume that L is countable, we can prove that there is a number r e IR which is not in L. Case closed.

NO PROOF BY CONTRADICTION NEEDED!
> > Actually, there is no need to assume that. Moreover Cantor never proved anything in this way.

> >

> > It suffices to consider an arbitrary subset L c IR. If we assume that L is countable, we can prove that there is a number r e IR which is not in L. Case closed.

> Cantor’s diagonal argument is a proof by contradiction which we summarize as the 4 steps deduction below:

CAN'T YOU READ?!

I SAID:

(a) Actually, there is no need to assume that.

(b) Moreover Cantor never proved anything in this way

...especially NOT the uncountability of "the real numbers".

Sep 12, 2022, 4:01:15 PMSep 12

to

Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

> On 12/09/2022 14:44, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

>>

>>> Above (and in your paper) you're saying the claim is "wrong", and

>>> "absurd" - but the claim is logically valid GIVEN THE ASSUMPTION A.

>>> There is nothing "wrong" with the /argument/ in the proof! It has

>>> just derived a contradiction from assumption A. Therefore we conclude

>>> assumption A is false.

>>

>> Proof by contradiction seems to trip lots of people up, and it's

>> annoying that it's so often used for this theorem because it's absolutely

>> not needed. It is simple to prove that for any L: N -> R, there is an r

>> in R not in range(L).

>>

>> Proof by contradiction goes

>>

>> Exists X such that X is what we want

>> -> bad things happen -> ~Exists X such that X is what we want

>

> Just to be devil's advocate, I like this, because what we actually

> want to prove is

>

> Not (exists X such that...)

>

> and to prove a "not anything..." it is natural to assume the negative

> and reach a contradiction.

>

> I know from many of your posts that you (mildly?) dislike this for

> some reason, or at least believe your alternative is better, but I

> don't /really/ get it.

It's absolutely fine for mathematicians. But a few non-mathematicians
> On 12/09/2022 14:44, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> Mike Terry <news.dead.p...@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:

>>

>>> Above (and in your paper) you're saying the claim is "wrong", and

>>> "absurd" - but the claim is logically valid GIVEN THE ASSUMPTION A.

>>> There is nothing "wrong" with the /argument/ in the proof! It has

>>> just derived a contradiction from assumption A. Therefore we conclude

>>> assumption A is false.

>>

>> Proof by contradiction seems to trip lots of people up, and it's

>> annoying that it's so often used for this theorem because it's absolutely

>> not needed. It is simple to prove that for any L: N -> R, there is an r

>> in R not in range(L).

>>

>> Proof by contradiction goes

>>

>> Exists X such that X is what we want

>> -> bad things happen -> ~Exists X such that X is what we want

>

> Just to be devil's advocate, I like this, because what we actually

> want to prove is

>

> Not (exists X such that...)

>

> and to prove a "not anything..." it is natural to assume the negative

> and reach a contradiction.

>

> I know from many of your posts that you (mildly?) dislike this for

> some reason, or at least believe your alternative is better, but I

> don't /really/ get it.

can get into a state about it, and I used to teach non-mathematicians.

I think the notion of /assuming/ as opposed to /asserting/ might be part

of what trips some students up. Another is that the assumption itself

can play into a deep unspoken belief. If you come to CS as a

programmer, the idea of a program that can't exist is very odd. Surely,

the student imagines, every reasonable sounding specification can be

met?

Specification: determine if a context free grammar (give in, say, BNF)

is ambiguous or not. The result is 100% pinned down. No ambiguity.

How could there /not/ be an algorithm to do this?

I'm not saying it's a major problem, but when you spend a few years

re-writing a lecture course, you end up making changes based on all sort

of seemingly minor hiccups from the past.

--

Ben.

Sep 12, 2022, 4:20:32 PMSep 12

to

fails because...".

--

Ben.

Sep 12, 2022, 5:07:53 PMSep 12

to

PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

> Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 01:16:43 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

>> PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

>> > I mean that when seeing L as only the set of it members, L have the

>> > same members than R.

>> But no L can't "have the same members" as R. If anyone

>> assumes it does, it is simply to show that assumption leads to a

>> contradiction.

>

> You think that you have the right to say “But no L can't have the same

> members as R”. However, you don’t because “L can't have the same

> members as R” is the result of Cantor's nested intervals proof and

> diagonal argument. In our case, we are discussing whether Cantor is

> right or wrong. So, we have to discuss on the ground where Cantor’s

> nested intervals proof and diagonal argument do not exist.

No we don't. You'd like to, but I don't have to. You have shown you
> Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 01:16:43 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

>> PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

>> > I mean that when seeing L as only the set of it members, L have the

>> > same members than R.

>> But no L can't "have the same members" as R. If anyone

>> assumes it does, it is simply to show that assumption leads to a

>> contradiction.

>

> You think that you have the right to say “But no L can't have the same

> members as R”. However, you don’t because “L can't have the same

> members as R” is the result of Cantor's nested intervals proof and

> diagonal argument. In our case, we are discussing whether Cantor is

> right or wrong. So, we have to discuss on the ground where Cantor’s

> nested intervals proof and diagonal argument do not exist.

know very little about the real numbers and what Cantors proofs actually

are (neither uses proof by contradiction, at least no explicitly).

There is very little reason for me to do more than read the outline you

gave, note that you don't know what you are talking about, and post a

correction.

In fact I went further, but that may yet prove to be a mistake.

> If you use “L can't have the same members as R”, then you are saying:

> Because “Cantor is right”, then “L can't have the same members as R”,

> so “Cantor is right”. This is cycling argument which is a logical

> fallacy.

am /not/ saying "let's assume Cantor is right, therefore you are wrong"

-- that would be circular. I am saying "Cantor is right. I and 7,815

others have checked the proof and it is sound. You are wrong". Note

that there is no "therefore". I am not making /any/ kind of logical

argument as to why you are wrong.

> So, starting from the ground where Cantor does not exist, I can assume

> “L has the same members as R”, then derive what its consequence is.

same sort if members).

> So, the derivation below is correct in logic :

> Assumption: “L has the same members as R”.

> r being not in L, then r is not in R because of the assumption.

definition or R and the construction of r), we have a contradiction.

Something has to go: r not in R by the assumption; r in R by the

construction. The only candidate is the assumption.

>> > I have cited this example in my paper:

>>

>> This is a pointless analogy because N (and specifically the subset of N

>> less that 4) does not have the key property. R is closed under taking

>> the least upper bound, that means that any countable list of reals can

>> be used to construct a real not in the list.

>

> Why does “R is closed under taking the least upper bound” implies “any

> countable list of reals can be used to construct a real not in the

> list”?

into a topic like this. You should be able to explain exactly how the

proof /claims/ to work, even if you think it has a flaw.

This property of R (which is equivalent to the definition using Dedekind

cuts and the definition using Cauchy sequences) is available all over

the web and in every textbook on the subject. I don't want to write ip

up for you here. But if you want to one-minute summary I'd give to a

student who stops me in the corridor it would be:

In the proof using decimal digits (one that Cantor never gave) the value

of the anti-diagonal is given by a Cauchy sequence -- a bounded

monotonic sequence of rationals. The limit so denoted is therefore a

real number, but it is also, by construction, not in range(L).

The other proofs all use a version of this property, but the details

vary.

--

Ben.

Sep 12, 2022, 5:26:23 PMSep 12

to

PengKuan Em <tita...@gmail.com> writes:

> Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 01:16:43 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

>> This is a pointless analogy because N (and specifically the subset of N

>> less that 4) does not have the key property. R is closed under taking

>> the least upper bound, that means that any countable list of reals can

>> be used to construct a real not in the list.

>

> Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 01:16:43 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse a écrit :

>> This is a pointless analogy because N (and specifically the subset of N

>> less that 4) does not have the key property. R is closed under taking

>> the least upper bound, that means that any countable list of reals can

>> be used to construct a real not in the list.

>

> Cantor’s diagonal argument is a proof by contradiction which we

> summarize as the 4 steps deduction below:

> 1. Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

> 2. sflip is created with the diagonal construction and is a real number.

> 3. sflip is not in the list, contradicting thus the Assumption A.

> 4. Conclusion: the set of all real numbers cannot be put into a list.

Well, it's not Cantor's proof (either of them) but it is how the theorem
> summarize as the 4 steps deduction below:

> 1. Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

> 2. sflip is created with the diagonal construction and is a real number.

> 3. sflip is not in the list, contradicting thus the Assumption A.

> 4. Conclusion: the set of all real numbers cannot be put into a list.

is often presented these days. Cantor's proof are not by contradiction.

(This is an over-simplification. Detail available in anyone cares.)

> Under the assumption “all real numbers are in L”, L includes R

over "details" like L and R and not the same kind of thing at all.)

> Every real number is necessarily member of L.

> So, real number that is out of the list L does not exist under the

> assumption.

> Under the assumption, real number that is out of the list L cannot be

> constructed.

> Cantor constructs 0.(flipped bits) from a list Ld

> 0.(flipped bits) is a real number. Because the bits are flipped,

> 0.(flipped bits) is not in the list from which 0.(flipped bits) is

> constructed, Ld Is Ld the list L mentioned by the Assumption?

>

> 0.(flipped bits) is not in Ld. On the other hand, 0.(flipped bits) is

> a real number and thus, under the assumption, is in the list L.

> Because 0.(flipped bits) is in L, 0.(flipped bits) is not in Ld: Ld is

> not L.

>

> The assumption about L is not contradicted by the result about

> Ld. That is, “0.(flipped bits) is not in Ld” is not against

> “0.(flipped bits) is in L”. As 0.(flipped bits) can be in L, Cantor’s

> proofs fail.

incorrectly. You can't just flip bits because many reals in [0,1] have

two binary representations. If you see a proof flipping bits, it's

probably wrong. There are lots of fixes, so let's not get hung up more

of those details mathematicians are so obsessed by.

Unfortunately I can't make out what your construction is. Suffice it to

say that the usual construction makes are real, r, not in range(L) for

any function L: N -> R.

By assumption, since r is a real, r is in range(L) for the assumed L,

and by construction r is /not/ in range(L). We have to ditch the

assumption.

[1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's

not.

--

Ben.

Sep 12, 2022, 6:04:31 PMSep 12

to

On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

Yeah.
> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty? I'd tend to say _yes_.

Funny thing, that *Cantor* never proved the uncountability of the reals "this way" (i. e. by that diagonal argument). ("Funny" because the proof is "practically" credited to him.)

(I'm quite sure you know that there are some subtle points when using the diagonal argument for proving the uncountability of the reals and that these points do not arise when just considering w/m sequences.)

Sep 12, 2022, 7:16:35 PMSep 12

to

Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>

>> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

>

> Yeah.

>

> But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

> I'd tend to say _yes_.

Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.
> On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>

>> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

>

> Yeah.

>

> But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

> I'd tend to say _yes_.

> Funny thing, that *Cantor* never proved the uncountability of the

> reals "this way" (i. e. by that diagonal argument). ("Funny" because

> the proof is "practically" credited to him.)

something similar that fitted his purpose -- addressing the

Entscheidungsproblem.)

--

Ben.

Sep 12, 2022, 10:22:43 PMSep 12

to

On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 17:16:35 UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

>

> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> >

> >> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

> > Yeah.

> >

> > But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

> > I'd tend to say _yes_.

> Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.

Except it's logically _invalid_ -- just as Euclid's "proof" of the infinitude of primes!
> Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

>

> > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> >

> >> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

> > Yeah.

> >

> > But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

> > I'd tend to say _yes_.

> Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.

> > Funny thing,

> Yes,

That's why there's this caveat from a SME mathematician that there is a:

"need for researchers to deactivate the thought patterns that they have installed in their brains and taken for granted for so many years".

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/math-mystery-shinichi-mochizuki-and-the-impenetrable-proof).

Sep 12, 2022, 11:20:41 PMSep 12

to

On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote:

> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 17:16:35 UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

> >

> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> > >

> > >> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

>

> > > Yeah.

> > >

> > > But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

> > > I'd tend to say _yes_.

>

> > Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.

> Except it's logically _invalid_ -- just as Euclid's "proof" of the infinitude of primes!

In Euclid's case, he assumed -- one way or the other -- there are infinitely many primes to prove there can't be just a finitude of.
> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 17:16:35 UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

> >

> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> > >

> > >> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

>

> > > Yeah.

> > >

> > > But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

> > > I'd tend to say _yes_.

>

> > Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.

> Except it's logically _invalid_ -- just as Euclid's "proof" of the infinitude of primes!

In Cantor's "proof", he (and we) assumed -- one way or the other [via the definition of "countable" infinity] -- that there can't be an 1-1 mapping from R to N.

Did Cantor know anything about _UPPER_ Löwenheim–Skolem theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6wenheim%E2%80%93Skolem_theorem)?

What did Cantor know about the _transcendency_ of the well-ordering of prime-numerals? About the _invalidity_ of Henkin's theory-*assumption*?

Sep 13, 2022, 6:09:00 AMSep 13

to

Khong Dong <khongdo...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote:

>> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 17:16:35 UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

>> >

>> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> > >

>> > >> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

>>

>> > > Yeah.

>> > >

>> > > But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

>> > > I'd tend to say _yes_.

>>

>> > Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.

>

>> Except it's logically _invalid_ -- just as Euclid's "proof" of the

>> infinitude of primes!

>

> In Euclid's case, he assumed -- one way or the other -- there are

> infinitely many primes to prove there can't be just a finitude of.

No, he did not.
> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote:

>> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 17:16:35 UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

>> >

>> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>> > >

>> > >> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

>>

>> > > Yeah.

>> > >

>> > > But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

>> > > I'd tend to say _yes_.

>>

>> > Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.

>

>> Except it's logically _invalid_ -- just as Euclid's "proof" of the

>> infinitude of primes!

>

> In Euclid's case, he assumed -- one way or the other -- there are

> infinitely many primes to prove there can't be just a finitude of.

> In Cantor's "proof", he (and we) assumed -- one way or the other [via

> the definition of "countable" infinity] -- that there can't be an 1-1

> mapping from R to N.

--

Ben.

Message has been deleted

Sep 13, 2022, 8:45:18 AMSep 13

to

Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 04:20:08 UTC+2, Mike Terry a écrit :

> On 11/09/2022 19:48, PengKuan Em wrote:

> I think you're not really familiar with everyday set theory, where "lists", "functions",

> "countability" etc. are formally defined.

>

> A better (for mathematicians) way of saying what you try to say in your PDF is:

>

> Set R is the set of all real numbers.

> List L is [by definition of "list"] a function N: --> R, and its range is (precisely) the whole of

> R. In this post I use N for set of natural numbers {1,2,3,...}

Thank you. Your reply is kind and informative. I have corrected the paper with some of your suggestions.
> On 11/09/2022 19:48, PengKuan Em wrote:

> I think you're not really familiar with everyday set theory, where "lists", "functions",

> "countability" etc. are formally defined.

>

> A better (for mathematicians) way of saying what you try to say in your PDF is:

>

> Set R is the set of all real numbers.

> List L is [by definition of "list"] a function N: --> R, and its range is (precisely) the whole of

> R. In this post I use N for set of natural numbers {1,2,3,...}

> Yes, that's one way of realising a concrete contradiction. When we have made an inconsistent

> assumption, there will be MANY possible contradiction statements that we could derive - deriving any

> one of them is sufficient to reject the original assumption.

> > The contradiction of the proofs is in the third step: sout “is not in the list”.

> Well, it comes out the same. "sflip is not in the list" means sflip is not in Range(L) = R, i.e.

> it's not a real number. And yet step 2 ensures it is in R: contradiction! Any contradiction we

> can deduce from the starting assumption suffices equally well.

> > By failing to create sout the second step collapses before the third step declares the contradiction.

> But the second step DOESN'T FAIL. It validly CONSTRUCTS sflip from the assumed list L, and the

> construction by its nature guarantees sflip is a real number. [...under the assumption A, of course...]

>

> You just don't understand how proof by contradiction works.

>

>

> Mike.

Cantor’s Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

Then, R belongs to L

sout is constructed with diagonal, nested intervals or whatever others method

sout is a real number.

The Assumption A is “All real numbers are in a list” where “All real numbers” means the set R and the “list” is an infinite list of all real numbers which we name L. From the Assumption A we deduce that if r is a real number, r belongs to the list L.

Cantor claims sout is a real number. We derive from Assumption A that sout is a real number that is, sout belongs to R. Then, sout belongs to L.

In the opposite way, we derive from Assumption A that if r is not in L, r is not in R and is not a real number.

Cantor's both proofs claim that sout is not in the list L and thus, is not a real number.

If the number he constructs is not a real number, his proofs do not work within R.

Either sout is a real number and belongs to L, then there is no contradiction

Or the number he constructs is not a real number and is outside R, then no contradiction

In fact, Cantor constructs sout from a list which he did not prove to be L. Let it be Ld.

Cantor’s claim “sout is not in the list” is in reality “sout is not in Ld”

Ld is different from L the list mentioned by the Assumption A

The statement “sout is not in Ld” does not contradict that “sout is in L”

So, “sout is not in Ld” does not contradict the Assumption A and Cantor fails to prove R is uncountable.

PK

I put the link to my paper just in case where someone wants to read it.

https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

Message has been deleted

Message has been deleted

Sep 13, 2022, 9:04:35 AMSep 13

to

Let me explain my corrected reasoning.

Cantor’s Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

Then, R belongs to L

sout is constructed with diagonal, nested intervals or whatever others method

sout is a real number.

The Assumption A is “All real numbers are in a list” where “All real numbers” means the set R and the “list” is an infinite list of all real numbers which we name L. From the Assumption A we deduce that if r is a real number, r belongs to the list L.

Cantor claims sout is a real number. We derive from Assumption A that sout is a real number that is, sout belongs to R. Then, sout belongs to L.

In the opposite way, we derive from Assumption A that if r is not in L, r is not in R and is not a real number.

Cantor's both proofs claim that sout is not in the list L and thus, is not a real number.

If the number he constructs is not a real number, his proofs do not work within R.

Either sout is a real number and belongs to L, then there is no contradiction

Or the number he constructs is not a real number and is outside R, then no contradiction

In fact, Cantor constructs sout from a list which he did not prove to be L. Let it be Ld.

Cantor’s claim “sout is not in the list” is in reality “sout is not in Ld”

Ld is different from L the list mentioned by the Assumption A

The statement “sout is not in Ld” does not contradict that “sout is in L”

So, “sout is not in Ld” does not contradict the Assumption A and Cantor fails to prove R is uncountable.

Cantor’s Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

Then, R belongs to L

sout is constructed with diagonal, nested intervals or whatever others method

sout is a real number.

The Assumption A is “All real numbers are in a list” where “All real numbers” means the set R and the “list” is an infinite list of all real numbers which we name L. From the Assumption A we deduce that if r is a real number, r belongs to the list L.

Cantor claims sout is a real number. We derive from Assumption A that sout is a real number that is, sout belongs to R. Then, sout belongs to L.

In the opposite way, we derive from Assumption A that if r is not in L, r is not in R and is not a real number.

Cantor's both proofs claim that sout is not in the list L and thus, is not a real number.

If the number he constructs is not a real number, his proofs do not work within R.

Either sout is a real number and belongs to L, then there is no contradiction

Or the number he constructs is not a real number and is outside R, then no contradiction

In fact, Cantor constructs sout from a list which he did not prove to be L. Let it be Ld.

Cantor’s claim “sout is not in the list” is in reality “sout is not in Ld”

Ld is different from L the list mentioned by the Assumption A

The statement “sout is not in Ld” does not contradict that “sout is in L”

So, “sout is not in Ld” does not contradict the Assumption A and Cantor fails to prove R is uncountable.

I put the link to my paper just in case where someone wants to read it.

https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

PK
https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

Sep 13, 2022, 10:56:06 AMSep 13

to

On 13/09/2022 13:40, PengKuan Em wrote:

> Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 04:20:08 UTC+2, Mike Terry a écrit :

>> On 11/09/2022 19:48, PengKuan Em wrote:

>> I think you're not really familiar with everyday set theory, where "lists", "functions",

>> "countability" etc. are formally defined.

>>

>> A better (for mathematicians) way of saying what you try to say in your PDF is:

>>

>> Set R is the set of all real numbers.

>> List L is [by definition of "list"] a function N: --> R, and its range is (precisely) the whole of

>> R. In this post I use N for set of natural numbers {1,2,3,...}

>>

>> It's also ok to summarise L as something like "assume L is an enumeration of R" or "L is a list
> Le lundi 12 septembre 2022 à 04:20:08 UTC+2, Mike Terry a écrit :

>> On 11/09/2022 19:48, PengKuan Em wrote:

>> I think you're not really familiar with everyday set theory, where "lists", "functions",

>> "countability" etc. are formally defined.

>>

>> A better (for mathematicians) way of saying what you try to say in your PDF is:

>>

>> Set R is the set of all real numbers.

>> List L is [by definition of "list"] a function N: --> R, and its range is (precisely) the whole of

>> R. In this post I use N for set of natural numbers {1,2,3,...}

>>

>> containing all members of R", but you have to understand that they are all saying the same thing - L

>> is actually a function mapping N to R! (And hence L =/= R )

>>

>> Sets are not a priori ordered, and L is not simply the same set as R - it has a "function"

>> structure. Mostly mathematicians define functions (using set theory) as sets of ordered pairs, so

>> function f is the set { (x, f(x)) : x in domain of f}

>>

>> I understand what you mean, however. I would say R = Range(L). This is not the biggest problem

>> with your paper, but your paper very early on (before L is introduced) says:

>>

>> R = {r_1, r_2, r_3, ...}, i in N, r_i in R, [1]

>>

>> so you are already pre-assuming that R is countable! R cannot be written in this form, as shown by

>> Cantor's argument. (If nothing else, this alerts readers to the lack of maths background of the

>> author, and primes them to expect a flurry of similar basic level mistakes... i.e. although they

>> don't say it out loud, they're already thinking "duffer"? You only get 3 strikes and you're out! :) )

>>

>> Your paper should just say R = set of real numbers, define L by one of the wordings I used, and

>> conclude R = Range(L).

> Thank you. Your reply is kind and informative. I have corrected the paper with some of your suggestions.

>

>> Yes, that's one way of realising a concrete contradiction. When we have made an inconsistent

>> assumption, there will be MANY possible contradiction statements that we could derive - deriving any

>> one of them is sufficient to reject the original assumption.

>>> The contradiction of the proofs is in the third step: sout “is not in the list”.

>> Well, it comes out the same. "sflip is not in the list" means sflip is not in Range(L) = R, i.e.

>> it's not a real number. And yet step 2 ensures it is in R: contradiction! Any contradiction we

>> can deduce from the starting assumption suffices equally well.

>>> By failing to create sout the second step collapses before the third step declares the contradiction.

>> But the second step DOESN'T FAIL. It validly CONSTRUCTS sflip from the assumed list L, and the

>> construction by its nature guarantees sflip is a real number. [...under the assumption A, of course...]

>>

>> You just don't understand how proof by contradiction works.

>>

>>

>> Mike.

>

>

>> Yes, that's one way of realising a concrete contradiction. When we have made an inconsistent

>> assumption, there will be MANY possible contradiction statements that we could derive - deriving any

>> one of them is sufficient to reject the original assumption.

>>> The contradiction of the proofs is in the third step: sout “is not in the list”.

>> Well, it comes out the same. "sflip is not in the list" means sflip is not in Range(L) = R, i.e.

>> it's not a real number. And yet step 2 ensures it is in R: contradiction! Any contradiction we

>> can deduce from the starting assumption suffices equally well.

>>> By failing to create sout the second step collapses before the third step declares the contradiction.

>> But the second step DOESN'T FAIL. It validly CONSTRUCTS sflip from the assumed list L, and the

>> construction by its nature guarantees sflip is a real number. [...under the assumption A, of course...]

>>

>> You just don't understand how proof by contradiction works.

>>

>>

>> Mike.

>

> Let me explain my corrected reasoning.

>

> Cantor’s Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

> Then, R belongs to L

> The number sout is constructed with diagonal, nested intervals or whatever others method
>

> Cantor’s Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

> Then, R belongs to L

> sout is a real number.

Yes.
>

> The Assumption A is “All real numbers are in a list” where “All real numbers” means the set R and the “list” is an infinite list of all real numbers which we name L. From the Assumption A we deduce that if r is a real number, r belongs to the list L.

>

> Cantor claims sout is a real number. We derive from Assumption A that sout is a real number that is, sout belongs to R. Then, sout belongs to L.

>

> In the opposite way, we derive from Assumption A that if r is not in L, r is not in R and is not a real number.

> Cantor's both proofs claim that sout is not in the list L and thus, is not a real number.

> If the number he constructs is not a real number, his proofs do not work within R.

sout is shown to be a real number, and so is within R so the proof works. (It is also shown to not

be in R - a contradiction. THIS IS HOW PROOF BY CONTRADICTION WORKS.)

>

> Either sout is a real number and belongs to L, then there is no contradiction

No. sout (IF IT EXISTED) would be both inside R and not inside R. A contradiction.

>

> In fact, Cantor constructs sout from a list which he did not prove to be L. Let it be Ld.

constructs sout. There is no second list anywhere - you're just confused here.

Your problem is not understanding "proof by contradiction" proofs - in particular, you seem to

misunderstand the nature of statements introduced by wordings like "SUPPOSE L is a list containing

all real numbers." It turns out that in fact there is no such list, but that's ok - the proof is

inviting the reader to CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES that would follow IF such a list L did exist,

without claiming that L does in fact exist. (That's what the "suppose" word means. Same for other

wordings that just ask the reader to CONSIDER consequences of some statement being true.)

Just about every single maths proof in existence will use this pattern of logic at some point. So

misunderstanding it will mean even the simplest proofs are not understood.

Regards,

Mike.

Sep 13, 2022, 1:05:46 PMSep 13

to

Also called "define-able", "discern-ible", running out all the finite words,

the usual problem is "not including any infinite words", or, "not including

all these infinite words".

Each infinite sequence is, ..., "define-able", by the value of the elements of

the sequence, though then in real numbers that gets to dual representation.

Here it's instead that two copies of the integers essentially make a square,

then that there's only one antidiagonal, and no other everywhere-non-diagonal,

and it so happens that the one antidiagonal is always at the end of the list.

This is due the properties of the function and linearity and so on, as a limit of

functions of integers and it's n/d for, numerator and denominator, where the

denominator goes to infinity.

Can you say exactly where in your list the antidiagonal or some everywhere-non-diagonal

is? In a thory where all functions are Cartesian, Virgil will show exists his algorithm,

that as well-defined as the sequences are, is the antidiagonal.

As far as these being "real numbers R[0,1]" it results that it's a different model

(in model theory for set theory) than the usual model "R the complete ordered

field, and a proper subset R[0,1], bounded by 0 and 1", instead it's "R these iota-values

according to function theory that fills [0,1[, has a total natural well orderingsame as

the integers, and is a continuous domain, is countable, and is unique among functions

that are 1-1 and onto a continuous domain". I.e. a different model of a continuous

domain for set theory, function theory, and what results all else the rest of mathematics,

has all the properties of a continuous domain its elements, then with regards to a

constructivist's "rather restricted transfer principle" or "Schmieden and Laugwitz,

who are constructivists and like whole things countable".

Then these days "metrizing ultrafilter", "Schwarz function support", complementary topoi,

about Vitali and Hausdorff geometers and Banach and Tarski algebraists, it just results

that after apologetics and definitions in function theory and topology, that it's very

simple again that "R[0,1] is as much a whole set clock arithmetic according to any

granularity of for example time", while, "R[0,1] is only a subset of the complete ordered

field reduced to the unit interval".

That otherwise all those things have pretty directly ways to apply arguments, ...,

"either well-defined and founded by multiple models of continuous domains,

or, inconsistent with fundamental ordinary relations, set theory".

Then, after scale in b^p and numerical precision in the algebraic according to

arithmetic coding, all words, each define-able and construct-ible, it's very simple

again and much better for mathematics in terms of that relevant foundations for

all sorts analysis have much more brief and closed derivations, that establish most

all usual definition.

You might axiomatize "there is a big infinity and confoundingly it exhausts

these regions in sequences as well as a sequence little infinity exhausts the

sequence", you might axiomatize that: but then it just results that you have

your own theory, and to say anything at all in terms of theories that are otherwise

totally blind to each other, in model theory it's in terms of transfer principle,

transfer of valid inference about properties, that then going about building

the theories soundly together, is what's called foundations of mathematics,

that alone are instead planks or platforms, of mathematics: here though

that involves solving that the other theory has the opposite conclusion as

a more-than-less direct, inference.

To solve the theories together I arrived at there are two models of continuous

domains at least, then it involves all technical philosophy if though to reduce

to extra-ordinary set theory: that results for that besides the (four or five, ...)

proofs of "uncountability of the reals, ...", is about the one proof "uncountability

of the powerset of integers", that to solve the paradoxes, is also an exercise

in showing that ordinals the objects fulfill showing the exponentiation as increment.

So, there are four or five "Cantor's proofs of uncountability of reals" like antidiagonal

argument and nested intervals, then variously "Cantor's proof of uncountability of

powerset", in "a set theory where all models of functions are Cartesian and not all

models of ordinals are compact", in larger theory there's a less-than-Cartesian function

in terms of its space or the support, and ordinals are ubiquitous and make order theory,

first.

Then, that it works out, "it's the same unique counterexample for all those, this

natural/unit equivalency function or after the slate, and for powerset, the modular

and clock", this then I called "sweep" so the function and principle about make it so

that both it's simple and it's foundations and it's all modern foundations.

So, ..., I provide _one_ example.

Sep 13, 2022, 2:22:22 PMSep 13

to

On Tuesday, 13 September 2022 at 04:09:00 UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> Khong Dong <khongdo...@gmail.com> writes:

>

> > On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote:

> >> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 17:16:35 UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> >> > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

> >> >

> >> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> >> > >

> >> > >> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

> >>

> >> > > Yeah.

> >> > >

> >> > > But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

> >> > > I'd tend to say _yes_.

> >>

> >> > Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.

> >

> >> Except it's logically _invalid_ -- just as Euclid's "proof" of the

> >> infinitude of primes!

> >

> > In Euclid's case, he assumed -- one way or the other -- there are

> > infinitely many primes to prove there can't be just a finitude of.

> No, he did not.

Wrong. Do you know what the _correct_ ( _FTA compliant_ ) definition of the unary-predicate "prime" is?
> Khong Dong <khongdo...@gmail.com> writes:

>

> > On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 20:22:43 UTC-6, Khong Dong wrote:

> >> On Monday, 12 September 2022 at 17:16:35 UTC-6, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> >> > Fritz Feldhase <franz.fri...@gmail.com> writes:

> >> >

> >> > > On Monday, September 12, 2022 at 11:26:23 PM UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> >> > >

> >> > >> [1] I think some people think Cantor's m/w proof is about bits, but it's not.

> >>

> >> > > Yeah.

> >> > >

> >> > > But since you mentioned his m/w proof: Isn't his proof a real beauty?

> >> > > I'd tend to say _yes_.

> >>

> >> > Oh, yes. It's extraordinary. Truly simple and elegant.

> >

> >> Except it's logically _invalid_ -- just as Euclid's "proof" of the

> >> infinitude of primes!

> >

> > In Euclid's case, he assumed -- one way or the other -- there are

> > infinitely many primes to prove there can't be just a finitude of.

> No, he did not.

Sep 13, 2022, 4:49:51 PMSep 13

to

Cantor’s Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

Then, R belongs to L

Then, R belongs to L

sout is constructed with diagonal, nested intervals or whatever others method

sout is a real number.

The Assumption A is “All real numbers are in a list” where “All real numbers” means the set R and the “list” is an infinite list of all real numbers which we name L. From the Assumption A we deduce that if r is a real number, r belongs to the list L. As sout is a real number sout belongs to L.
sout is a real number.

Cantor claims sout is a real number. Then, Cantor claims that sout belongs to L.

In the opposite way, we derive from the Assumption A that if r is not in L, r is not in R and is not a real number.

Cantor's both proofs claim that sout is not in the list and thus, is not a real number. Does the number he constructs is not a real number? Do his proofs go out of R?

In fact, Cantor constructs sout from a list which he has not proved to be L. Let it be Ld. Since sout is not in the list Ld, but is in L, Ld and L do not have the same members, which shows that they are different. So, Cantor’s claim “sout is not in the list” is in reality “sout is not in Ld”, but not “sout is not in L”. In consequence, even sout is not in Ld, sout is still in L which is the Assumption A. So, the Assumption A is not contradicted by “sout is not in Ld”.

On the other hands, when sout is a real number, it belongs to L and there is no contradiction either. In both cases, sout does not contradict the Assumption A and Cantor fails to prove R is uncountable.

I put the link to my paper just in case where someone wants to read.

https://www.academia.edu/86410224/Examination_of_Cantors_proofs_for_uncountability_and_axiom_for_counting_infinite_sets

PK

Message has been deleted

Sep 13, 2022, 5:13:40 PMSep 13

to

Le mardi 13 septembre 2022 à 19:05:46 UTC+2, Ross A. Finlayson a écrit :

> Then, that it works out, "it's the same unique counterexample for all those, this

> natural/unit equivalency function or after the slate, and for powerset, the modular

> and clock", this then I called "sweep" so the function and principle about make it so

> that both it's simple and it's foundations and it's all modern foundations.

>

>

> So, ..., I provide _one_ example.

I just explain without bits and flipping bits, no binary or digital numbers that go forever. Each real number is a point on the number line. Let's go.
> Then, that it works out, "it's the same unique counterexample for all those, this

> natural/unit equivalency function or after the slate, and for powerset, the modular

> and clock", this then I called "sweep" so the function and principle about make it so

> that both it's simple and it's foundations and it's all modern foundations.

>

>

> So, ..., I provide _one_ example.

Sep 13, 2022, 6:47:47 PMSep 13

to

On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 10:49:51 PM UTC+2, tita...@gmail.com wrote:

> Cantor <bla bla bla>

Actually, the argument is extremely simple, elegant and easy (almost trivial).

We show: For any list (infinite sequence) of real numbers there is a real number which is not in the list.

This implies: There is no "complete" list of real nmbers (i. e. a list which contains _all_ real numbers).

No need to assume counterfactually "All real numbers are in a list."

> Cantor <bla bla bla>

Actually, the argument is extremely simple, elegant and easy (almost trivial).

We show: For any list (infinite sequence) of real numbers there is a real number which is not in the list.

This implies: There is no "complete" list of real nmbers (i. e. a list which contains _all_ real numbers).

No need to assume counterfactually "All real numbers are in a list."

Sep 13, 2022, 9:02:34 PMSep 13

to

What you should be doing is asking intelligent questions that might help

you understand what other people are saying. The basic problem is that

you don't understand the proof method so you think it's wrong.

> Cantor’s Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

It's not Cantor's, it's yours. There's nothing wrong with a proof by

contradiction, but Cantor did not publish one that goes like this.

> Then, R belongs to L

Yes, except for the details that L and R are sets of different kinds of

objects.

> sout is constructed with diagonal, nested intervals or whatever others method

> sout is a real number.

Yes.

> The Assumption A is “All real numbers are in a list” where “All real

> numbers” means the set R and the “list” is an infinite list of all

> real numbers which we name L. From the Assumption A we deduce that if

> r is a real number, r belongs to the list L. As sout is a real number

> sout belongs to L.

Yes.

> Cantor claims sout is a real number. Then, Cantor claims that sout

> belongs to L.

Yes.

> In the opposite way, we derive from the Assumption A that if r is not

> in L, r is not in R and is not a real number.

You can do this, but there is a simpler way to get the contradiction.

> Cantor's both proofs claim that sout is not in the list and thus, is

> not a real number. Does the number he constructs is not a real number?

> Do his proofs go out of R?

Your proof, remember, not Cantor's. Cantor's proof is not by

contradiction. His argument is much simpler: from any list of reals

(not necessarily a full list -- any list), a real can be constructed not

in that list.

But back to you version of the proof... What do you do now that you can

show these things from the assumption that L includes all of R:

(a) r is in R

(b) r is in L

(c) r is not in L (by construction)

(d) r is not in R

The last step us up to you... Maybe it's time to conclude that the

assumption is untenable?

--

Ben.

you understand what other people are saying. The basic problem is that

you don't understand the proof method so you think it's wrong.

> Cantor’s Assumption A: All real numbers are in a list.

contradiction, but Cantor did not publish one that goes like this.

> Then, R belongs to L

objects.

> sout is constructed with diagonal, nested intervals or whatever others method

> sout is a real number.

> The Assumption A is “All real numbers are in a list” where “All real

> numbers” means the set R and the “list” is an infinite list of all

> real numbers which we name L. From the Assumption A we deduce that if

> r is a real number, r belongs to the list L. As sout is a real number

> sout belongs to L.

> Cantor claims sout is a real number. Then, Cantor claims that sout

> belongs to L.

> In the opposite way, we derive from the Assumption A that if r is not

> in L, r is not in R and is not a real number.

> Cantor's both proofs claim that sout is not in the list and thus, is

> not a real number. Does the number he constructs is not a real number?

> Do his proofs go out of R?

contradiction. His argument is much simpler: from any list of reals

(not necessarily a full list -- any list), a real can be constructed not

in that list.

But back to you version of the proof... What do you do now that you can

show these things from the assumption that L includes all of R:

(a) r is in R

(b) r is in L

(c) r is not in L (by construction)

(d) r is not in R

The last step us up to you... Maybe it's time to conclude that the

assumption is untenable?

--

Ben.

Sep 13, 2022, 9:04:35 PMSep 13