Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

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: 748
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 <virgil@ligriv.com> writes:

> In article <9b81b6f9-9f55-4559-9179-95ead66d0b88@googlegroups.com>,
> WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

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

>
>> > 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.


Exactly.


--
Alan Smaill



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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.