January 10th, 2017, 11:18 PM  #11  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,371 Thanks: 321  Quote:
There IS a bijection between the natural numbers and the digits of any particular real number. A number like $\pi  3 = .14159 \dots$ (I'm subtracting $3$ just so all the digits are to the right of the decimal point for simplicity) can be thought of as a bijection between the set of natural numbers $1, 2, 3, \dots$ and the digit positions of $\pi  3$. If you ask me for digit position $4$ I just start at the decimal point, count over to that digit position, and tell you that the digit in that position is "$5$". In principle we can look up any digit position. If you ask me for the digit in position one million or one billion or one trillion, I just start at the decimal point and count that far over to find out the digit. Conceptually it's like a lookup table or array in a computer program; except that the array has infinitely many cells, one for each natural number; and we can look up any cell of the array immediately. That's the conceptual model of standard math. Everything exists at once and is always available for use. That's one of the basic rules of the game. As you can see this is a highly abstract conceptual world we live in when we do math. Now the Cantor diagonal argument assumes we have a list of real numbers written one below the other. Each row is the decimal representation of a single real number, with its infinitely many digits. In fact there are exactly countably many digits: one for each natural number. In fact the assignment of digits to digit positions IS the bijection, or onetoone correspondence, that establishes that the set of digits is countably infinite. So now we have a big array. Each row is the countably long list of digits of some real number. And we suppose we have a list of these infinitely long strings, from top to bottom. Then we diagonalize to produce an infinitely long string that can not possibly be any row of the array; because it differs from row $n$ in digit position $n$. So no matter what list of reals we choose, it's always missing some number. This is in contrast to the situation with the rationals, where we CAN correspond each rational to a natural number. Of course not every proposed function works; but at least one does. Countability is an existence condition. It says that some function between the naturals and the rationals is a bijection. That doesn't mean that every function is a bijection, as you noticed. Last edited by Maschke; January 10th, 2017 at 11:25 PM.  
January 11th, 2017, 05:11 AM  #12 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 6,778 Thanks: 2195 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  
January 11th, 2017, 12:23 PM  #13  
Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: Alberta Posts: 55 Thanks: 2  Quote:
1 > 0.1000 ... 2 > 0.2000 ... 3 > 0.3000 ... 4 > 0.4000 ... . . . 9 > 0.9000 ... 10 > 0.0000 ... (discard) 11 > 0.0100 ... 12 > 0.0200 ... . . . 19 > 0.0900 ... 20 > 0.1000 ... (discard) 21 > 0.1100 ... 22 > 0.1200 ... . . . 29 > 0.1900 ... 30 > 0.2000 ... (discard) 31 > 0.2100 ... 32 > 0.2200 ... . . . Now if n can go to infinite, I can find you pi  3, or any other number with some infinitely large n.  
January 11th, 2017, 12:34 PM  #14 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 6,778 Thanks: 2195 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra 
No. Because every one of those decimals is of finite length and thus rational.

January 11th, 2017, 02:23 PM  #15  
Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: Alberta Posts: 55 Thanks: 2  Quote:
(so confused) Last edited by Mathbound; January 11th, 2017 at 02:26 PM.  
January 11th, 2017, 02:27 PM  #16  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,371 Thanks: 321  Quote:
But $\pi$ is only one single real number. We can't list ALL of them.  
January 11th, 2017, 02:42 PM  #17 
Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: Alberta Posts: 55 Thanks: 2  Right, but there are n infinite elements of rationals between each natural number  and even between any 2 rational numbers between each natural number.

January 11th, 2017, 02:53 PM  #18  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,371 Thanks: 321  Quote:
I don't see how your comment was in response to what I wrote. Last edited by Maschke; January 11th, 2017 at 02:56 PM.  
January 11th, 2017, 03:55 PM  #19  
Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: Alberta Posts: 55 Thanks: 2  Quote:
Like, I do and I don't see. On one hand, the rule forces us to leave out a number. But on the other hand, my list gives every possible digit in every possible decimal place. It will eventually give all possible combinations of digits 0 to 9 in all decimal positions for real numbers between 0 and 1.  
January 11th, 2017, 04:16 PM  #20  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,371 Thanks: 321  Quote:
 

Tags 
argument, cantor, diagonal, significance 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Cantor's Diagonal Argument and Infinity  zylo  Topology  59  May 21st, 2016 07:13 AM 
Cantor's Diagonal Argument Reconsidered  zylo  Topology  12  March 24th, 2016 09:53 AM 
Cantor's Diagonal Argument  zylo  Math  22  January 26th, 2016 09:05 PM 
Help! Cantor's Diagonal Argument  mjcguest  Applied Math  9  July 25th, 2013 07:22 AM 
Cantorīs diagonal argument  netzweltler  Applied Math  191  November 7th, 2010 02:39 PM 