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: Re: Cantor Paradox
Replies: 17   Last Post: Mar 15, 2004 12:45 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 176
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Cantor Paradox
Posted: Mar 11, 2004 11:09 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 11 Mar 2004, Virgil wrote:

>Even more, Nathan¹s list, if it can exist at all, is already an
>infinite string and it must be given before the diagonal can be
>Which means that any "diagonal" requires an infinite string, the
>list, for its definition.

I'm having trouble seeing this point. Why would this same objection
not apply to the standard argument showing the reals are not
denumerable? It seems to me that Nathan can construct his diagonal
as far out as he wants to, one step at a time, just the way the
diagonal in the standard argument is constructed, only assuming the
availability of an algorithm for translating strings to real numbers.

Danny Purvis

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.