January 12th, 2016, 05:21 PM  #11  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,681 Thanks: 2659 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
Again, the definition of the notation $\sum \limits_{n=0}^\infty a_n$ is that it means $\lim \limits_{m \to \infty} \sum \limits_{n=0}^m a_n$. This limit in turn is defined to be the number $L$, if such a number exists, such that for every $\epsilon \gt 0$ there exists an integer $M$ such that $\leftL  \sum \limits_{n=0}^m a_n\right < \epsilon$ for all $m \gt M$. There. Not an "infinity" in sight. No "infinite" sums either. All perfectly sweet for an "extreme finitist" to agree with. There is certainly an argument to be had over whether an "infinite sum" actually exists and, if it does, whether the "answer" to that "infinite sum" is the same number as represented by the definitions above. But that is not what this thread is about. This thread starts from the false premise that, given that a real number has an infinite representation, that we do not know what type of infinity we are talking about for the length of that representation. I'd be grateful if you took down your blog until its content is checked by somebody who actually understands the subjects you cover to avoid confusing people who are looking for mathematical theory as opposed to uninformed guesswork. Last edited by v8archie; January 12th, 2016 at 05:58 PM.  
January 13th, 2016, 03:42 AM  #12  
Member Joined: Oct 2014 From: UK Posts: 62 Thanks: 2  Quote:
I take it you object to anyone expressing any views that do not conform to prevailing philosophies. You are objecting to free speech. Your position is indefensible.  
January 13th, 2016, 04:23 AM  #13  
Member Joined: Oct 2014 From: UK Posts: 62 Thanks: 2  Quote:
The OP issue is with the troublesome concept of infinitely many digits. If we follow an algorithm that tries to convert the square root of 2 into a decimal, then the fact that the algorithm cannot complete is problematic. I do not need to see all the digits, but I do want a clear explanation of how the algorithm can complete and become equal to the square root of 2. I have exactly the same issue with 1/3 and 0.333... The series is supposedly endless, meaning you cannot reach a point after which there are no more terms, but there are supposedly no more terms after 'infinitely many'. How can it be endless and yet have no more terms after 'infinitely many'? You will deny it, but to me this is a clear contradiction. Either a decimal with infinitely many digits is a valid concept or it is not. Just defining the symbolic representation to be equal to the limit of the series is to completely avoid the issue.  
January 13th, 2016, 04:42 AM  #14  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,681 Thanks: 2659 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
If you wish to claim knowledge of some truth, you have a responsibility to ensure that it is accurate.  
January 13th, 2016, 04:58 AM  #15  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,681 Thanks: 2659 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
Secondly, the OP's issue is with the size of the infinite decimal representation, not the fact that it is infinite. The decimal representation of a number is just that: a representation. You can use $\sqrt2$ if you prefer, but most people (in the real world, not mathematicians) find the decimal representation more useful, or rather an approximation to that decimal representation. This is not a computation. The value $\sqrt2$ exists, and the decimal expansion exists to whatever degree of accuracy you require, in that it is always the same no matter how many times you determine it. It's accuracy is unlimited. To insist that you must have proof that "the algorithm can complete" is to insist on some level of approximation because by definition no algorithm can produce an infinite output and then terminate. How can something that never ends terminate? Last edited by v8archie; January 13th, 2016 at 05:04 AM.  
January 13th, 2016, 05:11 AM  #16  
Member Joined: Oct 2014 From: UK Posts: 62 Thanks: 2  Quote:
I completely agree that a decimal expansion can only be an approximation. This is my whole argument. It sounds like we might be in agreement on this point. Can you give me a simple yes or no on if a decimal expansion can exist with infinitely many digits, after which there are no more terms? Many mathematicians claim it can exist. Quote:
So the answer to the OP is that there are no infinities involved at all. Last edited by Karma Peny; January 13th, 2016 at 06:01 AM.  
January 13th, 2016, 06:24 AM  #17  
Member Joined: Oct 2014 From: UK Posts: 62 Thanks: 2  Quote:
I have posted a link to my article as an OP in this maths forum to get critical reviews from mathematicians. Both in the OP and on my website it is very clear that these are my personal views and that these views are 'extreme'. But you claim I can't publish a link to my article in a maths forum until it has been reviewed by mathematicians. Have you read Catch 22? Last edited by Karma Peny; January 13th, 2016 at 06:44 AM.  
January 13th, 2016, 06:42 AM  #18 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,681 Thanks: 2659 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
Of course the expansion exists. I said so in my post. You seem to think that a decimal expansion is a process, it's not. It's a representation of a number.

January 13th, 2016, 06:58 AM  #19  
Member Joined: Oct 2014 From: UK Posts: 62 Thanks: 2  Quote:
It is then claimed that the decimal representation is merely the representation of a number. This suggests it is merely an alternative symbolic representation for the number. You can't have it both ways. The fraction 1/3 can be expressed in entirety as a fraction, or in some bases, like base 12, but not in base 10. It cannot exist in base 10 because it cannot be actually constructed or even shown how it could possibly be constructed in base 10. Last edited by Karma Peny; January 13th, 2016 at 07:01 AM.  
January 13th, 2016, 07:02 AM  #20  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,681 Thanks: 2659 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
Catch 22 is pretty boring for me.  

Tags 
cardinality, infinity, irrational, numbers 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
irrational numbers  Albert.Teng  Algebra  4  February 12th, 2014 04:55 PM 
Irrational numbers  niki500  Number Theory  5  October 7th, 2012 09:10 PM 
Show a set of numbers are irrational  elim  Number Theory  1  September 22nd, 2011 12:03 PM 
Irrational Numbers  Mighty Mouse Jr  Algebra  1  October 16th, 2010 07:46 PM 
Irrational Numbers. Repeating Decimals and Infinity?  MattJ81  New Users  11  July 10th, 2010 07:51 PM 