|
|
Re: Distinguishability argument x Cantor's arguments?
Posted:
Jan 4, 2013 6:47 AM
|
|
On 3 Jan., 22:31, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <3d65ff59-bf7e-445b-aad6-77d4ece64...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 2 Jan., 22:19, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On the other hand Cantor have presented many arguments all of which
> > > are rigorously formalized in second order logic under full semantics,
> > > and those arguments PROVED that there are uncountably many reals
>
> > that can be distinguished by their finite initial segments.
>
> A decimal, or other base, expression is not a actually a number but
> merely a numeral, a representation of or name for a number.
>
> Actually, no real can be distinguished from ALL others by ANY finite
> initial segment of its decimal, or other base, representation.
That means that every real that shall be used in mathematics needs a
finite representation over a countable alphabet (even a finite
alphabet - but that does not matter here). Mathematics of real numbers
cannot be done in another way. Examples:
0,25 and only zeros following
0,111... and only 1's following
pi
e
crt(3)
and so on.
All distinguishable reals (and all reals that can appear in Cantor's
mathematics) belong to this set (as Cantor himself clearly
recognized).
Regards, WM
|
|
