|
|
Re: Finitely definable reals.
Posted:
Jan 12, 2013 3:20 AM
|
|
On 11 Jan., 23:30, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > But my question aimed at the application of undefined reals in
> > mathematics.
>
> Without them one cannot have a complete infinite Archimedean ordered
> field such as the real number field.
And with them one cannot have it either.
Try to discern a real that is not in the Binary Tree constructed from
a countable set.
> > No, you misunderstand again. Cantor's opinion was (and did not change
> > until he died) that undefined items are nonsense. And ofcourse he was
> > absolutely right.
>
> But he still showed that the set of real numbers, i.e., the objects
> forming the unique Archimedean complete totally ordered field was not a
> countable set in the sense that no surjection from |N to that set is
> possible.
He assumed that a set of all naturals exist, which is an assumption as
wrong as the assumption that a set of naturals can have cardinality 10
and sum 10.
> One may know that a real is between 0.1 and 0.2 but still not finitely
> definable. In fact one may know a real accurate to any finite number of
> decimals places but still have it undefineable any further.
which is tantamount to *not* having any real number but only a
rational interval.
>
> So if you only know its first n digits, that number is one of those
> undefineables that WM claims do nt exist..
No, there is no number known. Of course there are definable rationals
and reals in the interval.
> > There are two cases:
> > 1) If a Cantor list is finitely defined, then you know the entry in
> > every line and you know every digit of the diagonal.
>
> So that every list of finitely defined basal numerals, with base >=4,
> is incomplete since its antidiagonal is not listed.
Not a list which contains all (terminating) representations of
rationals.
>
> > 2) If a Cantor list is undefined and has only, as usual, the first
> > three lines and then an "and so on", then you do neither know the
> > following entries nor the digits of the diagonal. Nothing is
> > "discernible" then except the theorem that two decimals which differ
> > at some place are not identical. But that is not a deep recognition.
>
> But any assertion that a list of basal numerals is COMPLETE is
> falsified by the existence of anti-diagonals which are provably not in
> the original list.
It is already falsified by the non-existence of the sets of naturals
mentioned above.
Regards, WM
|
|
