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: Matheology 400: WM's Quantifier Confusion
Replies: 1   Last Post: Dec 11, 2013 5:58 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  
Alan Smaill

Posts: 1,103
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology 400: WM's Quantifier Confusion
Posted: Dec 11, 2013 5:58 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Virgil <> writes:

> In article <>,
> WM <> wrote:

>> Am Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2013 14:01:30 UTC+1 schrieb

>> > Then you know that for a constructivist there is no list of
>> > all real numbers.

> For a constuctivist there is also no complete list of all rational
> numbers.


There's no problem in giving an effective function from |N to
the rationals. The intuitionist position is that the rationals
are therefore countable. (WM's claim to the contrary notwithstanding.)

There *is* a problem giving such a function from |N to the
computable reals.

>> Here we need a list of all rational numbers only.
> Which, other than for constructivists is easy enough.

>> This list can be diagonalized. The first few digits of the
>> antidiagonal cannot prove that the antidiagonal differs from all
>> rational numbers of the list.

> But a general rule, applied equally to all digit positions, can.


Alan Smaill

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.