Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory

In article <1184359083.974667.129640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 Jul., 21:38, Rotwang <sg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
WM wrote:

[Peter Webb]





When you do the Cantor trick in base 10, you can prove to yourself that
it
always produces a number not on the list. Even if you have 0.500..
somewhere
on the list, you can be certain that you will never get the same number
in a
different form, such as 0.49999.. as a result of the construction.

If you could find a single example where the Cantor construction failed
to
produce a different number - if for example it generated 0.4999.. when
0.5
was on the list - then you can no longer claim that the Cantor
construction
ALWAYS produces a new number.

Such an example is easy to find. Consider the list
0.0
0.1
0.11
0.111
...
and switch 0 to 1 on the diagonal. Then you have at the diagonal the
number 0.111..., but only if this number (with one digit less) is also
in the list.

The guy to whom you are replying has already given an example where
the Cantor construction fails in base 2. However he was writing about
base 10 above, and with a sensible definition of the construction it
is impossible to find an example where the it fails to find a new
number.

Cantor himself was writing about base 2, using the symbols w and m.
But he did not clearly spell out that he meant real numbers.


Actually, Cantor clearly spelled out that his did NOT mean real numbers.




He only
talked about sequences. And for that case his proof was correct,
because w.mmm... is not the same as m.www... while binary 0.111... =
1.000...

But even in binary, if one pairs off digits starting from the binary
point, one can construct a rule by which for every list of such binaries
there is an unlisted binary.

For example one can define the construction so that the
decimal expansion it gives contains only the digits 4 and 7. The only
way that two different decimal expansions can define the same number
is if one of them contains an infinite string of 9's and the other
contains an infinite string of 0's

No. The example I gave shows also that the diagonal 0.111... is
contained in the list:

0.0
0.1
0.11
0.111
...


But if one pairs off digits, your list is
00.00'00'00'...
00.10'00'00'...
00.11'00'00'...
00.11'10'00'...
.....

so replacing every pair byut 01 by 01 and replacing it by 10 works
perfectly for Cantor and badly for WM.

Of course you can state that the diagonal is an infinite sequence of
1's while every list entry is a finite sequence of 1's. But that does
not help. Every finite number multiplied by 2 is also finite.

WM is only claiming that one particular rule does not work but cannot
show that there are no rules which work because there ARE rules which
work.

Therefore any sequence of 1's of the list numbers is less than half as
long as the sequence of 1's of the diagonal. Therefore the diagonal is
at least twice as long as any sequence of 1's contained in the list,
which is obviously nonsense.

Much of what WM argues for is nonsense. At least mathematically speaking.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A simple question about integers
    ... (This is a standard construction, ... > sequence of digits we even cannnot define a greater/smaller ... considered as infinite decimal expansions (or expansions ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: November 25 is Infinite Clause day!!
    ... infinite length are computable the conclusion of Cantor's proof relies ... on the existence of a new sequence of digits which is clearly non ... your construction can never be realised. ... places in the sequence are all covered. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... > He changes the digits of the sequence, ... > some weird element with index omega or whatever, ... I didn't intend that, because Cantor didn't too. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors diagonal proof wrong?
    ... > The diagonal is a sequence of digits, ... >>However, how, then, can Cantor change all the digits of this ... Cantors changed diagonal number differs from every real in a line ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: abundance of irrationals!)
    ... By the way sequences and infinite ... to construct a (Cantor) number different from all of them. ... We construct a sequence of n-digit pre-Cantor numbers, c_n, inductively ... The constructed Cantor number does not contain any zero digits or 9 ...
    (sci.math)