Re: The real numbers, and general comments

From: Andrew Usher (k_over_hbarc_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: 14 Sep 2004 23:33:29 -0700

mattgrime@o2.co.uk (matt grime) wrote in message news:<f9a5a56b.0409140942.13d974b4@posting.google.com>...

> > > > It gives the rule to construct all the other terms, therefore it's a
> > > > finite definition.
> > > >
> > > And it is a way of defining the real numbers contradicting your original
> > > claim, I think. I don't have the original post anymore and can't be
> > > bothered to search google.
> >
> > I defined N, not R. Pay atterntion or don't bother replying.
>
> Erm, from the format of your reply you seemed to be agreeing that my
> definitions were "finite". Why don't you pay attention? Or define your
> terms properly.

I said a definition was finite if it gives the rule to make all of the
set. Since no rule is possible giving all Dedekind cuts, or all Cauchy
sequences, R does not have a finite definition.

Andrew Usher