My Math Forum > Math Cardinality of the set of binary-expressed real numbers

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

 December 3rd, 2015, 03:41 AM #1 Member   Joined: Dec 2015 From: France Posts: 80 Thanks: 1 Cardinality of the set of binary-expressed real numbers This article gives the cardinal number of the set of all binary numbers by counting its elements, analyses the consequences of the found value and discusses Cantor's diagonal argument, power set and the continuum hypothesis. 1. Counting the fractional binary numbers 2. Fractional binary numbers on the real line 3. Countability of BF 4. Set of all binary numbers, B 5. On Cantor's diagonal argument 6. On Cantor's theorem 7. On infinite digital expansion of irrational number 8. On the continuum hypothesis Please read the article at Cardinality of the set of binary-expressed real numbers PengKuan on Maths: Cardinality of the set of binary-expressed real numbers or https://www.academia.edu/19403597/Ca...d_real_numbers
 December 3rd, 2015, 07:44 AM #2 Global Moderator     Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC -5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 938 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms Your proof in section 1 is incorrect -- you can't assume that set cardinalities will behave like exponents in the limit, despite the suggestive notation. (The result is correct, though.) Your claim in section 2, explored in section 3, is incorrect. The set you actually work with is the dyadic rationals, but you conflate them with the set of fractional binary numbers (your $\mathbf{B_F}$, i.e., the set of real numbers between 0 and 1, which you choose to represent in binary). Section 4 is incorrect by virtue of relying on the incorrect result from sections 2 and 3. Section 5 consists of a proof by assertion. Section 6, like section 4, relies on incorrect results and hence is also wrong. I did not bother checking further. Review: Is this a mathematical breakthrough?
 December 4th, 2015, 08:43 AM #3 Math Team   Joined: Jan 2015 From: Alabama Posts: 3,261 Thanks: 894 Surely you understand that the "number of real numbers" in a given interval does NOT depend upon how the numbers are expressed? So I don't understand your reference to "binary expressed numbers" and "binary numbers".
December 8th, 2015, 09:01 AM   #4
Member

Joined: Dec 2015
From: France

Posts: 80
Thanks: 1

Quote:
 Originally Posted by CRGreathouse Your proof in section 1 is incorrect -- you can't assume that set cardinalities will behave like exponents in the limit, despite the suggestive notation. (The result is correct, though.) Your claim in section 2, explored in section 3, is incorrect. The set you actually work with is the dyadic rationals, but you conflate them with the set of fractional binary numbers (your $\mathbf{B_F}$, i.e., the set of real numbers between 0 and 1, which you choose to represent in binary). Section 4 is incorrect by virtue of relying on the incorrect result from sections 2 and 3. Section 5 consists of a proof by assertion. Section 6, like section 4, relies on incorrect results and hence is also wrong. I did not bother checking further. Review: Is this a mathematical breakthrough?
Thank you for checking my article. I'm sorry to have replied late. I'm not alerted by email of your message.

December 8th, 2015, 09:05 AM   #5
Member

Joined: Dec 2015
From: France

Posts: 80
Thanks: 1

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Country Boy Surely you understand that the "number of real numbers" in a given interval does NOT depend upon how the numbers are expressed?
Yes.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Country Boy So I don't understand your reference to "binary expressed numbers" and "binary numbers".
I thought the set of binary numbers in the unit interval contains irrationals. It turned out no. Because when the number of digits goes to infinity, the digits are not actually infinite many.

December 8th, 2015, 10:06 AM   #6
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,445
Thanks: 2499

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Pengkuan Because when the number of digits goes to infinity, the digits are not actually infinite many.
Marvellous! I do applaud your willingness to suspend preconceptions when dealing with the infinite, but not all counterintuitive results are correct.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Pengkuan I thought the set of binary numbers in the unit interval contains irrationals.
It does.

There is no such thing as "a binary number". Any real number is expressible in decimal, binary or any other base you care to name (as long as you allow me to have infinite strings of numbers). Rather neatly, if you choose any rational base, the set of numbers that you can't express without recourse to infinite strings of numbers is the same (here I am making use of notations like $13 \div 22 ={13 \over 22}= 0.5\dot0\dot9=0.5090909\ldots$ all of which are finite representations as is the equivalent binary fraction $0.\dot1000001001010011110\dot0$).

So your use of binary is completely redundant and flawed.

Last edited by v8archie; December 8th, 2015 at 10:20 AM.

 September 16th, 2018, 03:44 AM #7 Member   Joined: Dec 2015 From: France Posts: 80 Thanks: 1 Analysis of the proof of Cantor's theorem Analysis of the proof of Cantor's theorem Cantor's theorem states that the power set of ℕ is uncountable. This article carefully analyzes this proof to clarify its logical reasoning Please read the article at PDF Analysis of the proof of Cantor's theorem PengKuan on Maths: Analysis of the proof of Cantor's theorem or Word https://www.academia.edu/37356452/An...antors_theorem
 September 17th, 2018, 02:13 AM #8 Global Moderator   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 19,713 Thanks: 1806 13/22 = 0.590909090..., whereas 0.509090909... is the expansion of 28/55.
September 17th, 2018, 11:47 AM   #9
Member

Joined: Dec 2015
From: France

Posts: 80
Thanks: 1

Quote:
 Originally Posted by skipjack 13/22 = 0.590909090..., whereas 0.509090909... is the expansion of 28/55.
Yes. But they do not have the same binary expressions.

 September 18th, 2018, 12:22 AM #10 Global Moderator   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 19,713 Thanks: 1806 Your analysis of Cantor's theorem doesn't seem to quote any part of Cantor's proof of it.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post topsquark Abstract Algebra 54 August 17th, 2015 07:46 AM Tau Applied Math 4 January 18th, 2014 12:40 PM mente oscura Number Theory 7 June 1st, 2013 02:48 AM farleyknight Applied Math 3 December 20th, 2008 08:01 PM johnny Computer Science 6 October 18th, 2007 10:29 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top