Virgil
Posts:
4,491
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Finitely definable reals.
Posted:
Jan 15, 2013 2:50 PM
|
|
In article <47ffaebf-bac8-49f7-b411-5be62cf4170f@googlegroups.com>,
Dick <DBatchelo1@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, January 14, You are right, not all finite strings are
> >>meaningful. But all meaningful strings are a subset of all finite >strings.
> >That is sufficient to know that all meaningful strings are >countable.
> >Regards, WM
> All meaningful strings that define real numbers are countable in the sense
> that they can be mapped into the integers. However, it is not true that they
> are countable in the sense that they can be written in a list.
> Suppose that there were some way to lok at a statement and determine that if
> it was meaninful or not. Then you could write the meaningful statements in a
> list. Statement "Diagonalize the set of numbers defined by this list" is a
> meaninful statement that defines a real number; it shhould be on the list!
> The simplest way to resolve this paradox is to accept that Vountability (
> mappable to the integers) and countability (writable in a list) are different
> concepts.
> Dick
I am puzzled by your "Vountability ( mappable to the integers)".
Any non-empty set, however large, can be mapped to any other non-empty
set, so your "Vountability" does not seem to do anything, except
possibly exclude empty sets.
--
|
|
