Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/28/04
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: group action and the fundamental group"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- In reply to: W. Mueckenheim: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: W. Mueckenheim: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Reply: W. Mueckenheim: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:20:58 -0500
In <fb701d3c.0411271334.cca9c93@posting.google.com>, on 11/27/2004
at 01:34 PM, mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de (W. Mueckenheim) said:
>What does distinguish the "limit" from the diagonal?
What distinguishes a banana from a townhouse? They're not remotely
similar.
The diagonal is a sequence of digits, not a number. In the case of the
Cantor diagonal argument you're referring to, you take the sequence of
digits as coefficients in a series and it is trivial to prove that the
series converges.
>Do we need different words here?
We need words that are applicable, and we need to ensure that we have
a common understanding of what they refer to. In particular, the term
limit has a precise meaning.
>However, how, then, can Cantor change all the digits of this
>"limit"?
He doesn't "change" anything. He defines a new number in terms of a
sequence of representations of numbers.
>And why can't we consider my proof in the limit?
What proof?
>So don't stop, but consider the limit of my proof.
What limit?
-- 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: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: group action and the fundamental group"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's Theory: Mathematical creationism"
- In reply to: W. Mueckenheim: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: W. Mueckenheim: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Reply: W. Mueckenheim: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|