Re: Well Ordering the Reals

William Hughes wrote:
>> You notation is incomplete. Given a "number" in your notation
>> you cannot tell what this "number" is without more information.
>> Nor have you demonstrated that this incomplete notation
>> is useful.
>

David R Tribble said:
>> Indeed. Tony, I have two numbers:
>> a = 0:111...110
>> and
>> b = 0:111...110
>> but a is not equal to b. Which one is larger?
>

Tony Orlow wrote:
> The one with the larger limit point. What are your limit points? How many bits
> ya got in each? This should concern you.

So you're saying that your notation does not convey sufficient
information to distinguish
0:111...110
from
0:111...110

Additional information must be given, but your notation does not
provide a way to do this. That was William's point.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... David R Tribble said: ... > William Hughes wrote: ... > Which makes it pretty obvious that Tony's notation is vastly ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > David R Tribble said: ... >>> Which makes it pretty obvious that Tony's notation is vastly ... >> Nor have you demonstrated that this incomplete notation ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > David R Tribble said: ... >> William Hughes wrote: ... >> Which makes it pretty obvious that Tony's notation is vastly ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> David R Tribble said: ... >>> Which makes it pretty obvious that Tony's notation is vastly ... >> Smiles, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > David R Tribble said: ... >>> It's your math, Tony. ... define x>y if the most significant digit where they differ is a 1 in x and a 0 ...
    (sci.math)