Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- From: lrudolph@xxxxxxxxx (Lee Rudolph)
- Date: 22 Jan 2007 14:37:45 -0500
Dave Seaman <dseaman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:09:42 +0900, toshiaki wrote:
"Dave Seaman" <dseaman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eovoec$8j5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reals don't have size. The "size" (Lebesgue measure) of a single pointSorry what I meant is size of number. number 2 has size 2.
on the line is 0.
Then I don't understand how you conclude that the reals must have gaps
between them.
Thank you for your detailed reply and many information. I shall reply little
by little.
Gaps that I mean, are spaces remained between distinguishable reals, or line
itself. Reals which don't have any figuers that caracterize them, and can be
manipulated only by AC, and among their sea, specifiable reals are scattered
whose amount has measure 0, is very similar to my difinition of gap.
Between any two computable reals there are uncountably many noncomputable
reals. Is this what you mean by a gap? If that is the case, then surely
what you have described is a gap in the computable reals, not a gap in
the reals. There is no gap in the reals.
Of course, even such a "gap" in the computable reals is not an *atomic*
gap: between two computable reals lies (for example) their computable
average. Does a gap with stuff in it really *count*?
Lee Rudolph
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- References:
- Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- From: toshiaki
- Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- Next by Date: Re: Axiom of Pairing, Scheme of Replacement from others
- Previous by thread: Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- Next by thread: Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|