Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: "georgie" <geo_cant@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Sep 2006 09:01:52 -0700
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <1158598213.849000.127730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<msadkins04@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let R be the set of all infinite binary strings which eventually settle
into a repeating digit or pattern of digits. Let L1 be a well-defined
ordering of R. Let D1 be the diagonal number obtained from L1 by the
application of Cantor's diagonal process. D1 is not a member of R.
Let L2 be the list obtained by putting D1 at the head of L1 (that is,
by adding one to the index number of each member of L1, and placing D1
in the first position of the newly indexed list). Let D2 be the
diagonal number obtained from L2 by the application of Cantor's
diagonal process. D2 is not a member of R, and is not D1. Let L3 be
the list obtained by putting D2 at the head of L2.
Let L_Omega be the list defined by the totality of all possible steps
of this procedure.
There is no such thing. If you think of L_{n+1} as being obtained by
"adding a previous element" to L_n, then L_Omega is not a list: it
does not have a first element.
That would seem to be the desired result. He wants the limiting
case to be the *SET* of real numbers, not the *LIST* of real numbers.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: Virgil
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- References:
- Another stab at Cantor
- From: msadkins04
- Re: Another stab at Cantor
- From: Arturo Magidin
- Another stab at Cantor
- Prev by Date: Re: Another stab at Cantor
- Next by Date: Yau made a fool of himself. Again.
- Previous by thread: Re: Another stab at Cantor
- Next by thread: Re: Another stab at Cantor
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
