Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Wm mis-explains what he means by a Binary Tree
Replies: 8   Last Post: Feb 7, 2014 2:54 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: WM mis-explains what he means by a Binary Tree
Posted: Feb 7, 2014 2:54 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <0ba1cb37-bc09-49ba-ace2-a97684ffe3ec@googlegroups.com>,
WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 6. Februar 2014 22:46:41 UTC+1 schrieb Virgil:
> > In article <a37eee53-513b-4299-9c30-36ec271eaec1@googlegroups.com>,

> > > > The finitely defined real number r = Sum_(n in |N) 1/2^(n!), in base
> > > > 2,
> > > > is not anywhere in WM's "rationals-complete list"


> > > No it is not since it cannot be represented by digits.

But it is finitely defined real number anyway!

> > It IS representable by digits in base 2 by having a 1 in each n! place
> > and 0's elsewhere.

> The set of these digits is in the set of all finite approximations of r. Is r
> in that set too?


The set of those digits is in {0,1} but r is not in {0,1} either!.

> > What exactly does WM mean by "represented by digits"?

> If all the digits of r are there, with their correct indices, then the number
> r is there. Otherwise you have not defined the number by its digits but need
> another definition, a finite one of course.


The thing is that one can have "all the digits there" everywhere outside
of WMytheology but according to WM , not within WMytheology.
Thus WMytheology and mathematics are disjoint.


> > Rationals do not all have a representation "by digits" in any one base

> Correct.

But there are still only countably many of them,
so they can all be named, even in WMytheology.

But the set of reals is immensly larger than the set of names
so most reals cannot be individually named.
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.