Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Topic: Need to discuss how Grid Numbers are not Rationals and why Rationals
are flawed

Replies: 13   Last Post: Sep 16, 2017 12:58 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 zelos.malum@outlook.com Posts: 89 Registered: 7/15/17
Re: All Possible Digit Arrangements Re: Need to discuss how Grid
Numbers are not Rationals and why Rationals are flawed

Posted: Sep 15, 2017 3:57 AM

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 9:31:43 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 4:50:37 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > A number cannot be an incomplete operation.
> >
> > By constant adding of .1 starting with .1 and stopping at 10 comprises a st of numbers each of them complete.
> >
> > By dividing all counting numbers starting with 1, into one another without any stopping number is a ill defined set whose members are mostly incomplete operation of division such as 1/3.
> >
> > Every set of numbers has all its members -- completed entities -- no operation is left suspended, otherwise, by logic you have declared a operation is a number.
> >
> > Old Math by accepting Rationals as numbers, accepted division is a number-- so to them they accepted 1/3 as a number entails accepting / or raw division as a number, and where does one fit the operation divide? Is it between 1/2 and 1/3.
> >
> > A number is only a number if it is a completed operation and in decimals that means ending in a string of 0s.
> >
> > This is not a number .33333....
> >
> > This is a number .333 for it means .33300000....
> >
> > An unfinished operation is not a number.
> >

>
> Now in Old Math with their Counting Numbers being the only perfect set and the rest of the numbers are cobbled together pieces of mess of goobledygook sets with no rhyme or reason, they had a tough time of proving Completeness and Closure to their sets of Numbers.
>
> In New Math, since all numbers are just Grid Numbers formed and created by a Math Induction, adding .1, then adding .01 then adding .001 on up to 10^604, that in such a system of Creating Numbers, there is never any need to see if the numbers are Complete or Closed. Why? Because the numbers created are All Possible Digit Arrangements for a given place value.
>
> You have every possible combination of digits.
>
> For instance, say I had just the two digits 0 and 1 with a two place value. Then all possible digit arrangements is this::
>
> 00 01
> 10 11
>
> Now, if Cantor had known this, he would never have ventured into his silly diagonal argument, because no diagonal can find a new number not on a list of all possible digit arrangements.
>
> So, we see here, that by Creating Numbers using Mathematical Induction. That we create all the numbers that exist and is a Complete and Closed set of numbers.
>
> AP

If you had been smarter than a potato you would know that the arguement is dependent on the fact that the digits are infinite and not finite.