Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: Matheology § 258
Replies: 6   Last Post: May 2, 2013 10:26 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Alan Smaill Posts: 1,018 Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 258
Posted: May 2, 2013 10:03 AM

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

> On 1 Mai, 23:31, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> > Yes, that is true. But (and please read this very attentively!):
>> > Cantor's argument requires the existence of the complete sequence
>> > 0.111.... in digits:

>>
>> > You can see this easily here:
>>
>> > The list
>>
>> > 0.0
>> > 0.1
>> > 0.11
>> > 0.111
>> > ...

>>
>> > when replacing 0 by 1 has an anti-diagonal, the FIS of which are
>> > always in the next line. So the anti-diagonal is not different from
>> > all lines, unless it has an infinite sequence of 1's. But, as we just
>> > saw, this is impossible.

>>
>> I see no significant difference between referring to a mathematical
>> object by a formula and referring to it by 'writing it down' .

>
> But Cantor's argument is invalid, in this special case, unless it can
> produce 0.111... with actually infinitely many 1's, i.e. more than
> every finite number of 1's.
>
> It does not matter whether 1/9 exists as a fraction or whether it
> exísts in the ternary system as 0.01. In order to differ from every
> entry of my list Cantor's argument needs to produce, digit by digit,
> the infinite sequence. And that does not exist.

Not at all;
you accept that for any naturals n,m, (n/m)^2 =/= 2,
and that because you reason that any particular choice
leads to a contradiction. You do not worry in that situation
that you need to check infinitely many cases.

Just reason in the same way here.

WM has double standards.

> Regards, WM

--
Alan Smaill

Date Subject Author
5/2/13 Alan Smaill
5/2/13 rt servo
5/2/13 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/2/13 Virgil
5/2/13 Virgil