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: Distinguishability argument x Cantor's arguments?
Replies: 15   Last Post: Jan 9, 2013 4:32 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Distinguishability argument x Cantor's arguments?
Posted: Jan 9, 2013 4:16 AM

In article
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 9 Jan., 00:15, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > On 8 Jan., 14:44, mstem...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
> >
> > > > However, ANY real can be distinguished from ANY other by SOME finite
> > > > initial segment of its decimal, or other base, representation.

> >
> > > The problem is not distinguishing given reals, but how reals can
> > > uniquely by *given*. That requires a finite definition. But I am
> > > afraid that you don't even understand what that means.

>
> > A set is determined by any rule for distinguishing whether a test object
> > is or is not a member.

>
> A real number is determined or "given" by a unique word.

No number is given by a single word until that word has been defined as
meaning some number.

> Otherwise it
> could not be used.

Many, if not most, numbers are referred to by numerals which are at
least grammatically more like phrases rather than single words.

> And it was not possible to compare some finite
> initial segment of it with something else.

I can compare 3.14159 with a lot of things. That WM confesses his
inability to do so is just a measure of his general inabilities.
>
--