Re: Multiple infinities - one more look

On Dec 8, 8:33 am, "Mike Terry"
<news.dead.person.sto...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Venkat Reddy" <vred...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:052a8b26-92db-46a9-8caf-1ba9c7300927@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



I see. I think order is related to how you choose to represent the
number. If the real number is represented by a digit sequence of
infinite length, we immediately have an order for all reals, since
digit position have an order. For example, for the length of 6 digits,
one can generate these sequences by writing all possible permutations
and combinations of digit sequences in an orderly fashion. This can be
continued for lager length of digit sequences without limit. All
possible digit sequences are guaranteed to appear somewhere in the
list.

No. This process only generates finite digit sequences. Real numbers have
infinite digit sequences...



Instead, if you choose to represent a real number by an algebraic
equation, here also we have an order in representing the equation
itself, so the resulting reals have an order. Likewise for
transcendental as well - once you have a way of identifying the
number, we have a way of ordering them.

It seems you are thinking of something like "computable numbers", and these
are indeed countable. Real numbers need not be computable in this sense
(i.e. having a finite program to output their digits in sequence).



You may say you want to represent the real number as a point on the
line such as the interval [0,1]. Here also we have an order. Cut the
line into half and mark the 0.5 as your first real number. Cut the two
pieces in to two equal parts, mark 0.25 and 0.75 as new real numbers.
Continue the process for ever and you have an ordering of all points.

No. Real numbers need not be one of these points you construct, although
your process will construct real numbers arbitrarily close to any given real
number.

Let's identify a real number as a unique label for a cut in a line
segment (spatial continuum) at a random location. The fact is, such
cuts or splits or points exist only after you imagine them. The
continuum doesn't already have them ready for us to count. This is
similar to fact that we also do not have "ones" ready to count as
natural numbers, but only after you imagine some discrete items.

The natural ordering of such cuts, is exactly similar and opposite to
ordering of natural numbers. Natural number sequence keeps introducing
a new "one" in an attempt to fill the "empty continuum". A reciprocal
process for this would be to introduce a new "zero" or split in an
attempt to empty the "full continuum". However, introducing the splits
wouldn't be by adding one at a time, but 2^n of those at a time. This
follows from the observation that in natural number sequence we are
adding a "one" to every "empty continuum", and hence we need to add a
split to every "full continuum", that is, the pieces resulting from
the previous cuts.

This ensures that we can always imagine 2^n number of splits for every
imaginable natural number n. When the natural number hits infinity,
then we have 2^oo as the number of points, all are perfectly ordered
or sequenced.

- venkat




One might be quick to point that this process can only hit the real
numbers of the form of multiples of 1/(2^n), and misses the numbers
like 1/3, 1/pi, 1/sqrt(2). My answer for this is, have a
representation of these numbers as points on the real line and show me
why my process can't hit these points, if you really continue the
process for ever.

Better yet, have a list of all possible representations - digit
sequences, algebraic equations, geometric models etc. For each of
these representations, have a process to generate all possible numbers
in that representation as I have shown above. That should cover all
real numbers in an orderly fashion, though in a 2-dimensional order.

Well, you've given 3 suggestions above, and all 3 suggestions are wrong and
putting them together doesn't make things any better! :-)

Ask for any number, one of these processes is guaranteed to have it in
its list (I would even say every process have that number in its list,
but at different positions, but I don't need to depend on this
anyway).

Also, since each of these processes have a countable list, and the
number of processes is also countable, the reals must be countable.
Did I miss anything?

Each of your processes covers only a proper subset of the real numbers.

Regards,
Mike.





- venkat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantor Confusion
    ... Not I define omega as the limit ordinal number. ... >> sequences). ... > Equivalence classes of sequences with same limit like ... You really do not understand how the reals are defined. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Dedekind Cuts, Fundamental Sequences: why?
    ... speak of "Cauchy sequences of rationals" when constructing the real ... no metric spaces and no Cauchy sequences until after we have finished ... constructing the reals, if we are to avoid circularity. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: arithmetic in ZF
    ... The uncomputable reals correspond exactly to the the ... > sequences of rationals that are their Cauchy sequences. ... bijecting the naturals or ordinals to some set of formulae. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Multiple infinities - one more look
    ... and combinations of digit sequences in an orderly fashion. ... continued for lager length of digit sequences without limit. ... so the resulting reals have an order. ... continuum doesn't already have them ready for us to count. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Multiple infinities - one more look
    ... But order is independent of representation. ... continued for lager length of digit sequences without limit. ... so the resulting reals have an order. ... numbers of the form of multiples of 1/, ...
    (sci.math)