Date: Feb 6, 2013 4:31 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology 203
In article

<63c3dd2b-cf74-407d-a750-c6a6981b1421@fv9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 6 Feb., 10:08, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

>

> > > Everything of 0.111... that can be defined by sequences of 1's, is in

> > > the list. The finite definition "s" or "o.111..." is not in the list,

> > > but finite definitions have nothing to do with Cantor's diagonal

> > > proof.

> > > Is that really exceeding the capacity of your brain?

> >

> > It certainly seems beyond the capacity of WM's.

>

> With no doubt.

> >

> > 0.111... is a finite definition for Sum_(n in |N) 1/b^n,

>

> which is another finite definition of 1/9 and notr available for

> diagonalization.

>

> Try to diagonalize:

>

> 1 divided by 9

> 1 divided by circumference of the unit circle

> series of Gregory-Leibniz

> basis of the logarithms

> Euler's constant

> andsoon

If the nth term in that sequence can be expressed in some n-ary form

with n >= 4, , say, decimal form, accurate to n+1 n-ary places, then

forming an anti-diagonal is trivial.

>

> Nothing else is required by Cantor with the only exception, that for

> every n the finite initial segment a_n1, ..., a_nn of entry number n

> has to be expanded by digits. But as everybody knows, these finite

> initial segments belong to a countable subset of the countable set of

> rational numbers.

The nth term need not be expanded beyond n+1 digit accuracy in order to

have a well defined antidiagonal.

>

> Regards, WM

--