Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Who's up for a friendly round of debating CANTORS PROOF?
Replies: 134   Last Post: Aug 29, 2011 7:17 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 at1with0 Posts: 51 Registered: 12/31/10
Re: Who's up for a friendly round of debating CANTORS PROOF?
Posted: Aug 17, 2011 7:00 PM

On Aug 17, 1:37 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 17 Aug., 18:05, at1with0 <at1wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Just to reiterate/elaborate.
> > You can prove that there is no function from N onto R which implies R
> > is uncountable.

>
> That would be the fact if R existed and the theory was free of
>
> Neither is true.

I'm not that interested in a mathematics without R.

Can you cite any semblance of a reason why Th(R) is inconsistent? Can
you name two statements derivable from Th(R) which directly contradict
each other?

>
> >  You do not need a diagonal trick to prove it because
> > you can prove that no function exists from a set onto its powerset in
> > general.

>
> No, not in general. Only in case of existing set and power set.

If not, you need to show me a set for which there is a function onto
its powerset. So show me. And don't show me any bullshit pictures
with trailing magical ellipses with wonderful properties. I want a
set with a function onto its powerset.

Good luck with that.

>
> >  This is easy to prove in the finite case but the same proof
> > works for the infinite case.

>
> This proof shows the inconsistency of set theory:
>
> The complete infinite binary tree contains all real numbers between 0
> and 1 as infinite paths i. e. infinite sequences { 0, 1 }^N of bits.
>
>              0.
>           /      \
>        0          1
>      /    \     /     \
>    0      1  0      1
>   /
> 0 ...
>
> The set  { a_k | k in N } of nodes (bits) a_k of the tree is
> countable.
>
>             a0.
>           /      \
>        a1       a2
>      /    \     /     \
>   a3   a4 a5     a6
>   /
> a7 ...
>
> The complete infinite binary tree is the limit of the sequence of its
> initial segments B_k:
> ____________________
> B_0 =
>
>             a0.
> ____________________
>  B_1 =
>
>            a0.
>           /
>        a1
> ____________________
>  B_2 =
>
>             a0.
>           /      \
>        a1       a2
> ____________________
> ...
> ____________________
>  B_k =
>
>             a0.
>           /      \
>        a1       a2
>      /    \     /     \
>  ...
>               ....a_k
> ___________________
> ...
>
> The structure of the Binary Tree excludes that there are any two
> initial segments, B_k and B_(k+1), such that B_(k+1) contains two
> complete infinite paths both of which are not contained in B_k.
> Nevertheless the limit of all B_k is the complete binary tree
> including all (uncountably many) infinite paths. Contradiction. There
> cannot exist more than countably many infinite paths.

The powerset of N is uncountable. What makes you so sure there are
countably many infinite paths? Your path towards proving that would
be to provide a function from the set of infinite paths into N (an
injection). Or by providing a function from N onto the set of
infinite paths. I hope you don't give me a circular argument, lol

>
> Alternative consideration: Obviously every B_k is finite. None does
> contain any infinite path. The infinite paths come into the play only
> after all B_k with k in N (by some unknown mechanism). If that is
> possible, however, this mechanism can also act in Cantor's diagonal
> proof such that the anti-diagonal enters the list only after all lines
> at finite positions.
>
> Regards, WM

Irrelevant because, like I said, the proof that |N| < |R| (or |N| < |
P(N)|, if you like) need not rely on Cantor's diagonal argument but,
instead, can be done in purely set-theoretical terms.

Of course you're going to deny Cantor's diagonal argument if you
believe R does not exist.

Date Subject Author
8/13/11 Graham Cooper
8/13/11 Rupert
8/14/11 SPQR
8/14/11 Rupert
8/14/11 SPQR
8/14/11 Rupert
8/14/11 Frederick Williams
8/14/11 Graham Cooper
8/15/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 Rupert
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/15/11 Porky Pig Jr
8/17/11 Graham Cooper
8/17/11 at1with0
8/17/11 Jim Burns
8/18/11 Transfer Principle
8/17/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/17/11 SPQR
8/17/11 at1with0
8/18/11 Graham Cooper
8/18/11 SPQR
8/18/11 at1with0
8/19/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/19/11 SPQR
8/20/11 Virgil
8/20/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/20/11 SPQR
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/18/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/19/11 hagman
8/19/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 at1with0
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 at1with0
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 at1with0
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/21/11 SPQR
8/21/11 Peter Webb
8/21/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 Jim Burns
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/20/11 at1with0
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/21/11 SPQR
8/21/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/21/11 SPQR
8/21/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/21/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/21/11 Graham Cooper
8/21/11 SPQR
8/21/11 SPQR
8/20/11 SPQR
8/20/11 Graham Cooper
8/20/11 SPQR
8/20/11 SPQR
8/19/11 SPQR
8/18/11 Graham Cooper
8/18/11 SPQR
8/18/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Graham Cooper
8/19/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/19/11 SPQR
8/13/11 at1with0
8/14/11 donstockbauer@hotmail.com
8/14/11 Marshall
8/15/11 Graham Cooper
8/14/11 Transfer Principle
8/17/11 master1729
8/18/11 Transfer Principle
8/14/11 Newberry
8/17/11 Transfer Principle
8/16/11 DBatchelo1
8/17/11 Graham Cooper
8/17/11 Dan Christensen
8/18/11 Newberry
8/18/11 SPQR
8/18/11 Newberry
8/19/11 SPQR
8/19/11 Newberry
8/18/11 Dan Christensen
8/18/11 Newberry
8/18/11 Graham Cooper
8/18/11 Graham Cooper
8/18/11 Dan Christensen
8/18/11 Virgil
8/18/11 Graham Cooper
8/17/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/17/11 SPQR
8/17/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/17/11 SPQR
8/18/11 DBatchelo1
8/18/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/18/11 SPQR
8/19/11 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
8/19/11 SPQR
8/20/11 Virgil
8/19/11 Newberry
8/29/11 |-| E R C
8/29/11 Virgil
8/29/11 Graham Cooper