The Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: § 534 Finis
Replies: 30   Last Post: Feb 22, 2015 8:14 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 10,821
Registered: 6/8/11
Re: � 534 Finis
Posted: Aug 8, 2014 12:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <c10a7a6a-e462-4630-875e-81d20aa25e5b@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Thursday, 7 August 2014 21:31:09 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
>
>

> > > If infinity can be finished, then N is ""all natural numbers. I have
> > > assumed that and have shown that then rationals remain uncounted.


In any proper set theory, N would be the SET of all natural numbers,
not merely '"" all natal numbers'.
>
> > Only for All Finite Sets do Any Rationals Remain Uncounted.
>
> What else but finite numbers can index rationals?


The Infinite Sets of finite natural numbers can can index the infinite
set of rational number when that infinite set of rational numbrs has
been properly well-ordered as follows:

Once again, since WM is having so much trouble understanding it:

Each member of Q has UNIQUE representation as m/n, with m being an
integer, n being a positive integer, and with m and n having no common
factor greater than 1.
Order them by increasing values of abs(m)+n, and within equal values
of abs(m)+n by increasing values of m, if any.
Note that for positive m, m/1 has successor -(m+1)/1.
For any other form, m/n will have successor of form
(m + k)/(n - k) for some natural k with 0 < k < n.
This is a well-ordering of Q with a first rational, 0/1, and for each
rational a uniquely defined successor rational, and with no rationals
left out.
Thus each rational is now enumerated by the natural number marking
its position in the above well-ordering, at least everywhere outside of
WM's worthless world of WMytheology.
> >
> >
> >

> > > But since it is impossible to identify remaining rationals

In the above well-ordering, there aren't any "remaining" un-well-ordered

> In every case naturals remain.

Name one!
1 is used in the well-ordering of Q, and for every n used, n+1 is also
used, so which naturals have not been used?
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.