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.independent

Topic: Discussion with WM - Frustration reaches boiling point (What
is not clear?)

Replies: 1   Last Post: Jul 8, 2014 6:09 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
karl

Posts: 398
Registered: 8/11/06
Re: Discussion with WM - Frustration reaches boiling point (What
is not clear?)

Posted: Jul 8, 2014 6:09 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Am 08.07.2014 11:57, schrieb mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de:
> On Tuesday, 8 July 2014 10:14:23 UTC+2, karl wrote:
>
>

>>
>> The only thing you show is that a finite number of natural numbers is never
>> enough to enumerate all rationals; nobody doubts that.

>
> Sorry, all finite natural numbers are not enough. If there are infinitely many,
> why then should my proof for all not show it for all?

>>
>
>> But for increasing n all rationals gets their index number.
>
> Not even in the limit, since in the limit the cardinality, i.e.,
>the number of not enumerated rationals is infinite.


This is your belief. in the enumeration given by Virgil

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WellOrdered

all rationals get their index here. Can you name any rational without an index?
No, therefore you prove nothing, you only claim that something which is vaild for all finite natural numbers MUST BE
TRUE also for something
infinite. This is not correct.


>>
>> All rationals get their index here. But, certainly, always for a
>> given finite natural number there is an infinity of rationals which
>> have indices larger than this number n. But this shows nothing.

>
> A proof for all n shows nothing?



It shows only that a finite number of naturals is not enough to provide indices for all rationals. That's it!!

Don't be sad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dinYJZhhj0

What is now with your proof that the reals are countable:

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0306200v1

Why you don't say if it is right or wrong? I'm just curious.



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.