Re: how to list all of the real numbers

In article <46B3432D.2030306@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Stephen J. Herschkorn" <sjherschko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Everyone needs to calm down here. If you read Calvin's original post,
his real numbers are represented by *paths* in a binary tree. He
acknowledges that there are uncountably many such paths:

Thus each endless path corresponds to a real number, and every
real number is represented by a path. Some of the reals
are represented by more than one path [...]

As is well known, the number of paths is uncountable,
though the number of nodes is countable.

The word "list" might be misleading, since that usally implies an
enumeration by the natural numbers.

Calvin also notes that one can get any real number to finite accuracy in
a finite number steps:

Thus, amazingly enough, we can list ALL of these reals
at once, to any desired binary place, simply by working
on the tree, from left to right, row below row of nodes,
for a finite number of steps. And we can calculate that
number of steps.

'All at once' is misleading, of course, since multiple
reals occupy the same paths to whatever desired binary
place we choose to stop. But they're all there.


I do not share Calvin's amazement, however. To many of us here, the
method he proposes is nothing new.

I have the impression that Calvin is earnestly learning about
uncountablity and such, and he is sharing his ways of thinking about the
issue. He does not strike me as a crank who, for example, insists that
the reals must be countable.

The topic of uncountability is so often brought up by cranks that it is
very easy to miss the sincerity of non-cranks. (Is there a better word
than that?) I think we ought to be careful not to discourage those who
come to learn.

Calvin exhibits two behaviors consistent with cranks,
behaviors that distinguish cranks from contributors.

* Calvin talks at length about his ideas.
* Calvin does not seek out instances of agreement.

Calvin rates above zero on the crank scale.

--
Michael Press
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: If WM,JJ,LV, PO, and RF all left,
    ... cranks all left, would we have ... George, please, not all who wander are lost. ... While that may be so, I do argue that there is a particular function that bijects the naturals and the unit interval of reals, and that it preserves ordering, in obviously a non-standard construction of real numbers. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: .9 repeating repeated - generalization
    ... In either case there must be a number that lies between ... some "cranks" prefer the existence ... reals, where no nonzero infinitesimals exist, the reals ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why you can not count real number?
    ... I'm surprised to hear that pairing up the reals with the integer in a ... the sci.math cranks who thinks the reals are countable. ... The man who is always worrying about whether or not his soul would be ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: how to list all of the real numbers
    ... If you read Calvin's original post, his real numbers are represented by *paths* in a binary tree. ... Some of the reals ... I have the impression that Calvin is earnestly learning about uncountablity and such, and he is sharing his ways of thinking about the issue. ... He does not strike me as a crank who, for example, insists that the reals must be countable. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Has the world gone mad?
    ... >by pointing me to a paper which says that, ... >interval of reals you care to name. ... Don't you think that a precise knowledge of what Baumgartner calls ... --- Calvin ...
    (sci.math)