My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > Math Forums > Math

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


Thanks Tree9Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
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
Pengkuan is offline  
 
December 3rd, 2015, 07:44 AM   #2
Global Moderator
 
CRGreathouse's Avatar
 
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?
CRGreathouse is offline  
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".
Country Boy is offline  
December 8th, 2015, 09:01 AM   #4
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: France

Posts: 80
Thanks: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse View Post
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.
Pengkuan is offline  
December 8th, 2015, 09:05 AM   #5
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: France

Posts: 80
Thanks: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Country Boy View Post
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 View Post
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.
Pengkuan is offline  
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
v8archie is offline  
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
Pengkuan is offline  
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.
skipjack is offline  
September 17th, 2018, 11:47 AM   #9
Member
 
Joined: Dec 2015
From: France

Posts: 80
Thanks: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
13/22 = 0.590909090..., whereas 0.509090909... is the expansion of 28/55.
Yes. But they do not have the same binary expressions.
Pengkuan is offline  
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.
skipjack 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 © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.