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

Topic: ? 533 Proof
Replies: 46   Last Post: Aug 4, 2014 8:39 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 15,723
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: ? 533 Proof
Posted: Aug 1, 2014 11:13 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Thursday, 31 July 2014 13:30:35 UTC+2, Michael Klemm wrote:
> WM wrote;
>
>
>

> > For every k in |N there is n_0 in |N such that for n >= n_0: (n-k, n] c
> > s_n, i.e., an interval that does not contain rational numbers indexed by n
> > or smaller naturals.

>
> Why so complicated? For any finite number of reals there are always gaps
> between any two of them.


There are always gaps between real numbers. Impossible to close them.

But here we have the overwhelming evidence that the rationals cannot be enumerated by the naturals. The number of unit intervals, each one containing infinitely many rationals without index =< n, increases infinitely, i.e., beyond any upper bound. Of course a matheologian will brush this aside by the standard blether "cardinals are not continuous". But everybody with a critical intellect will ask *why* he should believe this. The honest answer is: it is forced by the claim that infinity can be finished. Who would give a dime for that? Exept matheologians with their well-known brain defect, carefully implanted during the study.

Regards, WM



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.