Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/15/04
- Next message: Stephen J. Herschkorn: "Re: Gamma Distribution"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Luis A. Rodriguez: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:34:40 -0500
In <20041114122706.926$Pt@newsreader.com>, on 11/14/2004
at 05:27 PM, curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) said:
>Why is it ok to write 0.111... but not ...11111 ?
It'sa OK to write either one, as long as you define what they mean and
don't assum e properties beyond those implied by their definitions. In
your case you are assuming that ...11111 is an integer, which is
patently false.
>It's just a name we use to talk about the
>real value which is 0.1111 repeating forever.
No. 0.111... is a name of limit n->oo 0.1 (n times), which happens to
be 1/9. You haven't defined ...11111 to be the name anything.
>And I can just as easily
>define the integer of 1 repeating forver.
That's not a definition.
>The only reason we do not do that is a matter of convention.
No, the only reason that we don't do it is that there is no sensible
mapping from such strings into the integers.
>It's not (so I claim) in violation of what integers are.
You can claim that 1+1=3 if you want, but that won't cause anybody to
take you seriously. Claims must be backed up with sound reasoning.
>If you start with 0, and continue to apply the +1 function to it,
>and ignore all the values you come up with which does not have all
>1's, you find you have the exact same type of defintion that gives
>you 1/9 when you generate a string of one's running to the right,
>instead of running to the left.
No. Again, you do not understand what an integer is or what a number
is.
>Also, all integers have an implied infinite string of 0's running to
>left
No. An integer is not a string of digits.
>(just like reals have am implied infinite string of 0's running to
>the left and right).
No. A real number is not a string of digits. There are partial
mappings from strings of digits to numbers.
>Just change the implied 0, to an implied 1,
That gives you a string of digits. It does not give you a number.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
- Next message: Stephen J. Herschkorn: "Re: Gamma Distribution"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Luis A. Rodriguez: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|