Re: sci.math FAQ and Cantors proof
From: Arturo Magidin (magidin_at_math.berkeley.edu)
Date: 09/23/04
- Next message: Scott Roper: "Re: sci.math FAQ and Cantors proof"
- Previous message: Robert Low: "Re: Olcott is cured of CrackPottery! (Halting Problem)"
- In reply to: Peter Webb: "sci.math FAQ and Cantors proof"
- Next in thread: Scott Roper: "Re: sci.math FAQ and Cantors proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:03:51 +0000 (UTC)
In article <4152319c$0$4310$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>Both sci.math and sci.logic receive many posts concerning Cantors diagonal
>proof. Many of these are common misunderstandings, which could be considered
>FAQs.
[.snip.]
>
>Let us imagine you have a list of Real numbers that you claim has every Real
>number between 0 and 1 on it. It might look as follows:
I would suggest avoiding a proof by contradiction. Why not show that
any function f:N->R is not surjective?
[.snip.]
>However, it doesn't. For example, 0.333. isn't on the list.
I would suggest writing "1/3" or "0.333..." rather than "0.333."; or
explain that the period at the end is meant to signify an infinite
repetition of the digit 3?
Otherwise, looks good!
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
- Next message: Scott Roper: "Re: sci.math FAQ and Cantors proof"
- Previous message: Robert Low: "Re: Olcott is cured of CrackPottery! (Halting Problem)"
- In reply to: Peter Webb: "sci.math FAQ and Cantors proof"
- Next in thread: Scott Roper: "Re: sci.math FAQ and Cantors proof"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|