My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Math General Math Forum - For general math related discussion and news


Thanks Tree14Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
October 3rd, 2018, 07:52 AM   #91
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by AplanisTophet View Post
$0-----0.0_2 = \frac{0}{2^1}$
$1-----0.1_2 = \frac{1}{2^1}$
$2-----0.01_2 = \frac{1}{2^2}$
$3-----0.11_2 = \frac{3}{2^2}$
$4-----0.001_2 = \frac{1}{2^3}$
.
.
.


The list contains only dyadic rationals of the form $\frac{a}{2^b}$ where $a$ is an integer and $b$ is a natural number. As a result, your list is a mere subset of the rational numbers. It also contains no irrational numbers.
That’s like saying you can

You now need to prove that each real number in [0,1) can be expressed in the form $\frac{a}{2^b}$ as a dyadic rational. Alternatively, you can get that sailboat.
Please give an example of a real number [0,1) not in the list. Note the list contains ALL binary and decimal sequences.
zylo is offline  
 
October 3rd, 2018, 07:58 AM   #92
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: United Kingdom

Posts: 311
Thanks: 109

Math Focus: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Every entry in the list is finite but the list has no end.
I'm glad we can finally agree - every entry of the list is finite. (Of course the list has no end, this was never in question.) If you add a binary radix point in front of a finite string of ones and zeros, you get a rational number. So no irrational number arises from your list. Not even all the rational numbers in [0,1) show up (see AplanisTophet's comment to see which ones do).

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Please give an example of a real number [0,1) not in the list. Note the list contains ALL binary and decimal sequences.
Any irrational number in [0,1) or any rational number not expressible in the form $\frac{a}{2^b}$ with $a, b$ natural will do. As you admitted, every element of your list is finite. So no infinite string is in your list.

Last edited by skipjack; October 3rd, 2018 at 09:15 AM.
cjem is offline  
October 3rd, 2018, 08:08 AM   #93
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 493
Thanks: 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Please give an example of a real number [0,1) not in the list. Note the list contains ALL binary and decimal sequences.
The list contains only dyadic rationals so $\frac{1}{3}$ isn't in the list.

If you can show me an element of the list that is not a dyadic rational, I'll give you my sailboat.

PS - Get a sailboat.
AplanisTophet is offline  
October 3rd, 2018, 08:37 AM   #94
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

What you say is true IF the list is finite (ends) it doesn't.

.33333..... is a nested sequence which by a theorem of analysis zeroes in on one point of the real line. Want to guess what it is?

You're spending too much time with the sailboat.
zylo is offline  
October 3rd, 2018, 08:53 AM   #95
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: United Kingdom

Posts: 311
Thanks: 109

Math Focus: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
What you say is true IF the list is finite (ends) it doesn't.
Yes, and it's also true if the list is infinite (which it is). If $x$ is a binary string in your list (yes, any of the infinitely many of them), then its corresponding number in [0,1) must be rational. I have proven this by induction.

With not much extra work, you could prove by induction that every element of your list actually corresponds to a dyadic rational number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
.33333..... is a nested sequence which by a theorem of analysis zeroes in on one point of the real line. Want to guess what it is?
For a string to correspond to $\frac{1}{3}$, it would have to be infinitely long. However, as you've said, all the strings in your list are finite. Therefore no string in your list can correspond to $\frac{1}{3}$.

Also, what you've said here is nonsense. $.3333...$ is not a sequence, but is instead a real number. It's by definition the limit of the sequence $.3, .33, .333, ...$.

Last edited by cjem; October 3rd, 2018 at 09:16 AM.
cjem is offline  
October 3rd, 2018, 09:32 AM   #96
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjem View Post

1) With not much extra work, you could prove by induction that every element of your list is actually dyadic rational number.

2) For a string to correspond to $\frac{1}{3}$, it would have to be infinitely long. However, as you've said, all the strings in your list are finite. Therefore no string in your list can correspond to $\frac{1}{3}$.

3) Also, what you've said here is nonsense. $.3333...$ is not a sequence, but is instead a real number. It by definition the limit of the sequence $.3, .33, .333, ...$.
1) and 2): But the list doesn't end.
3) It defines a sequence of closed nests each one containing the subsequent one, and there is only one number common to all.

Apparently there is the inability to comprehend that any particular natural number is "finite," but the list of natural numbers doesn't end. If you have a problem with that, you will just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again, and compensate for your inability to comprehend with insults.
zylo is offline  
October 3rd, 2018, 10:36 AM   #97
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2017
From: United Kingdom

Posts: 311
Thanks: 109

Math Focus: Number Theory, Algebraic Geometry
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
1) and 2): But the list doesn't end.
I agree. Fortunately my proof works even though the list doesn't end. That's the power of induction for you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
3) It defines a sequence of closed nests each one containing the subsequent one, and there is only one number common to all.
Sure. I was just disagreeing with your claim that $.333.....$ is itself a sequence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Any particular natural number is "finite," but the list of natural numbers doesn't end. If you have a problem with that, you will just keep repeating the same thing over and over and over again
I have no problem with this whatsoever. I wholeheartedly agree.

Last edited by cjem; October 3rd, 2018 at 11:04 AM.
cjem is offline  
October 3rd, 2018, 10:55 AM   #98
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,204
Thanks: 647

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
To answer Maschke's interesting question, offhand, an infinite power series has an infinite number of roots unless it converges.
Care to give an example?
Maschke is offline  
October 3rd, 2018, 11:41 AM   #99
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,373
Thanks: 2010

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Skipjack and CJEM. Every entry in the list is finite, but the list has no end.
If you agree that every entry is finite, please explain your remark that the list contains ALL imaginable binary sequences, given that anyone can imagine an infinitely long string of digits.

If you disagree that every entry is finite, please ignore the previous request and instead give an example of an entry that isn't finite (preferably the first such entry in the list), stating where exactly it occurs in the list.
skipjack is offline  
October 3rd, 2018, 11:47 AM   #100
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
Care to give an example?
I can't. I thought I could get there from an nth degree polynomial has n roots for all n. I can't. e^z was a mistake.
zylo is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

Tags
binaryexpressed, cardinality, continuum hypothesis, diagonal argument, numbers, real, set



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cardinality of transcendental numbers topsquark Abstract Algebra 54 August 17th, 2015 07:46 AM
How does cardinality apply to real numbers? Tau Applied Math 4 January 18th, 2014 12:40 PM
Powers expressed as sum of consecutive numbers mente oscura Number Theory 7 June 1st, 2013 02:48 AM
Cardinality of the Real numbers farleyknight Applied Math 3 December 20th, 2008 08:01 PM
Binary Numbers johnny Computer Science 6 October 18th, 2007 10:29 AM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.