Re: Cantor and the binary tree



W. Dale Hall wrote:

> >
> > No, it persists presently in some less smart minds as an idea although
> > they think it was a number. No problem to consider it and to teach
> > those minds why they are wrong.
> >
> >>Second objection: When in the future the 10^100th digit becomes known
> >>standard math will stay correct.
> >
> >
> > It is really a pitty that mathematicians are so unknowledgeable of
> > physics and of reality, about the foundations of their world and,
> > hence, about the foundations of their science. There will be never a
> > time where all 10^100 digits of pi will be known. But that would be
> > required to insert it in the odered set of real numbers.
> >
>
> But the knowledge of 10^100 digits of pi wasn't your original complaint;
> it was the knowledge of the 10^100th digit of pi.
>
> You don't need all the digits up to position n to obtain the digit at
> position n. In fact, you don't need *any* of the preceding digits.

You need all those digits to put pi in proper position with respect to
the real axis. And if you had supplied them all, which is absolutely
impossible, then I would require the first 10^1000. Pi does exist as an
idea, but it does not exist as a number.

Regards, WM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... it persists presently in some less smart minds as an idea although ... >> You don't need all the digits up to position n to obtain the digit at ... world where WM says pi does not dwell, ... Mathematicians are quite happy with this ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantor and the binary tree
    ... > It is really a pitty that mathematicians are so unknowledgeable of ... about the foundations of their science. ... > time where all 10^100 digits of pi will be known. ... > required to insert it in the odered set of real numbers. ...
    (sci.math)