Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Virgil (ITSnetNOTcom#virgil_at_COMCAST.com)
Date: 01/05/05
- Next message: E. E. Escultura: "Re: The state-of-the-art in mathematics"
- Previous message: John Larkin: "Re: [OT] I hate being American"
- In reply to: mueckenh_at_rz.fh-augsburg.de: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:01:47 -0700
In article <1104925266.402853.82190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > In article <1103618066.157797.12630@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> >
> > > Irrational numbers don't exist, because none of them can be
> > > represented.
> >
> > Then squares don't have diagonals?
>
> Of course, they do. (The situation is splendid, compared to Cantor's
> list of really excisting numbers, which is lacking more than 99 % of
> its lines.) But real squares have real diagonals. 40 digits are more
> than sufficient.
>
> Regards, WM
Not for squares in Eucliean geometry.
- Next message: E. E. Escultura: "Re: The state-of-the-art in mathematics"
- Previous message: John Larkin: "Re: [OT] I hate being American"
- In reply to: mueckenh_at_rz.fh-augsburg.de: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|