Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?
From: Jonathan Hoyle (jonhoyle_at_mac.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: *** T. Winter: "Re: JSH: Focus on facts"
- Previous message: Paul Leyland: "Re: Special form numbers factorization"
- In reply to: J.E.: "Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Sep 2004 06:06:32 -0700
> Why do we care about "uncountably many" real numbers when in reality
> there are only a countable number that we can "prove theorems about"?
Actually, that's not true. Although there can be only a countable
number of theorems, they can still address an uncountable number of
reals. As a simple example, there are an uncountable number of reals
in the Cantor set, and a simple procedure by which to determine given
any real if it is a member (namely, can its decimal expansion, when
convereted to base 3, be written without using the digit 1).
Jonathan Hoyle
- Next message: *** T. Winter: "Re: JSH: Focus on facts"
- Previous message: Paul Leyland: "Re: Special form numbers factorization"
- In reply to: J.E.: "Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"
- Next in thread: J.E.: "Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"
- Reply: J.E.: "Re: Skolem's Paradox and why is math the way it is?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Loading