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: Finitely definable reals.
Replies: 52   Last Post: Jan 18, 2013 2:37 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de Posts: 18,076 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Finitely definable reals.
Posted: Jan 15, 2013 12:55 PM

On 15 Jan., 17:05, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 15, 7:53 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 15 Jan., 15:32, forbisga...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Only the infinite expansion will
> > > do where the termial repeating sequense is identified as above.

>
> > It will do? It will *never* do! Never ready, that is the meaning of
> > unfinished work.

>
> > > You know this but are just playing games.  You also know that some reals
> > > are irrational and do not have a termial repeating sequence.  Just as
> > > with the rationals only the infinite expansion will equal itself--all elese
> > > are approximations.  For most human purposes sufficiently close approximations
> > > are good enough

>
> > and other decimal approximations do not exist. You may say, they are
> > never available. Two parallels never cross each other. That is
> > tantamount to "cross each other in the infinite".

>
> > But we can state: If parallels cross each other and irrationals have
> > complete decimal expansions then Cantor is right. Or better: Only in
> > the reals where parallels cross each other and irrationals have
> > complete decimal expansions Cantor is right.
> >

> No, there are systems, tools, and perspectives where it is right that
> parallel lines meet,

Then they are not parallel, i.e., they have not always the same
distance.

> and don't, and that irrationals have infinite
> expansions,

They have infinite expansions, but not actually but potentially. There
is every d_n you like, but there are not all d_n.

>
> And, as simply noted, ZF's universe of all its sets, would be the
> Russell set, and contain itself.

If set theory were right, then it should be able to tell the limit
between existing sets and non-existing sets like the set of all sets.
In fact there is no infinite set existing, because by the power set
axiom, the set of all its power sets should exist.

Regards, WM