Re: (sketch of a) Proof that the set of Real Numbers doesn't exist

From: Dave Seaman (dseaman_at_no.such.host)
Date: 01/26/05


Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:26:42 +0000 (UTC)

On 26 Jan 2005 06:20:46 -0800, albstorz@gmx.de wrote:

> José Carlos Santos wrote:
>> On 26-01-2005 9:42, albstorz@gmx.de wrote:
>>
>> > The set of real numbers doesn't exist. The set theorie assumes the
>> > existence of distinguishible objects - sets and elements of sets.
> The
>> > reals are not distinguishible. E.g. there is no real next to
> another
>> > number.
>>
>> Of course, the same argument allows you to conclude that the set of
>> rational numbers doesn't exist.
>>

> You are right. The example is not well selected. Would have been
> better: "E.g. transcendental numbers cannot to be accurately indicated
> (contrary to rational numbers)".
> O.k.?

You haven't defined "accurately indicated."

What about the algebraic irrationals? Are they "accurately indicated"?

-- 
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>


Relevant Pages

  • Re: Basic set question
    ... >> Dave Seaman ... >> Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ... > Calling a list a set does not make it one. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Transcendental Dimensions
    ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: 0^0
    ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: abundance of irrationals
    ... > following construction of all reals, leading to aleph_0 binary digits ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Gdel, Turing, and Cantor
    ... > proved using the induction theorem. ... Dave Seaman ... Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. ...
    (sci.math)