My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
February 20th, 2012, 10:39 AM   #51
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
Re: Full Paper - Conjecture 9-14-11

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherM
What? (I honestly have no idea what you are saying or why it is relevant to my work)
It directly addresses your oft-quoted "for any element 'j' in RI, 'j' is not a subset of the union of all 'g' in RI such that 'g' is not equal to 'j'." question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherM
Function g works on finite strings too, and it is very easy to prove that for any finite string r, r is not a subset of the union of g(q) for ALL finite strings q where the cardinality of g(q) is equal to or less than g(r). The same holds for any infinitely large string r, where g(r) is not a subset of the union of all g(q) for ALL q where the cardinality of g(q) is equal to or less than g(r).
Perhaps the question you asked wasn't the question you intended. The answer to the one actually asked is "false".
CRGreathouse is offline  
 
February 20th, 2012, 03:17 PM   #52
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 15
Thanks: 0

Re: Full Paper - Conjecture 9-14-11

I still have no idea what CR is talking about and when it comes to C-sheaves I agree with the definition of N but you'll have to explain how that is a definition of R or further what that definition of R has to do with my set RI.

Proof that for any element 'j' of RI, 'j' is not a subset of the union of all 'g' in RI such that 'g' is not equal to 'j' is as follows: If I union two elements of RI together, then there are only two elements of RI that are a subset of the union (ie... the two sets that were unioned). If I union three sets, then there are only three sets that are a subset, and so on. If I union N elements of RI together, then there will be N elements of RI that are a subset of the union (again, the N sets that were unioned, not the N sets that were unioned and whatever additional ones you want to toss in there).

CR, are you comprehending that g(0) was never part of the proof, that 10 could never be an element of a g(r) in RI, and that 0.01 and 0.11 could never coexist in an element of RI? Once two elements of RI differ they will differ forever more. Not many infinitely large sets of dyadic rationals constitute elements of RI as compared to all possible infinitely large sets of dyadic rationals.

If I take the sequence/set A = {0.1, 0.01, 0.11, 0.001, 0.101, 0.011, 0.111, ... f}, then I get all the dyadic rationals in my set A and all elements of RI are subsets of the set A. If I consider two elements of RI, r = {0.01, 0.011, 0.0111, ...} and r' = {0.1, 0.11, 0.111, ...}, then which one becomes a subset of the sequence first? It would have to be r, as 0.01 appears before 0.11 in the sequence, 0.011 appears before 0.111, and so on, would it not? (This is a rhetorical question) It is a paradox that one can make C-sheaves argument and it is equally paradoxical that you can make my argument. Again, from the greatest of all paradoxes, "Both statements are equal." This is the definition of a point (a paradox). ... no using hyper-reals here (I do not believe in them).
ChristopherM is offline  
February 20th, 2012, 04:21 PM   #53
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 17
Thanks: 0

Re: Full Paper - Conjecture 9-14-11

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherM
I still have no idea what CR is talking about and when it comes to C-sheaves I agree with the definition of N but you'll have to explain how that is a definition of R or further what that definition of R has to do with my set RI.
1. These are not definitions. My 'definition' of uses to index the union. Circular definitions suck.

That aside: do you accept the statement that is equal to the union of open intervals for each ?

2. The reasoning is in the second half of that post. It's that stuff about how in every example (the two expressions within that post and the business with the from earlier) I am taking a union 'along' an infinite chain of nested sets that contains no maximal element.

The product of this infinite nested union, or 'least upper bound' of the in is , but is not equal to any
The product of this infinite nested union, or 'least upper bound' of the in is , but is not equal to any
The product of this infinite nested union, or 'least upper bound' of the in or alternatively is , but is not equal to any single

3. Now go re-read my previous post and see if it makes sense to you now.
Categories+Sheaves is offline  
February 20th, 2012, 04:37 PM   #54
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 17
Thanks: 0

Re: Full Paper - Conjecture 9-14-11

Footnote: I meant 'least upper bound' in the sense of the partial order relation on the class Set, not the order relation on
Categories+Sheaves is offline  
February 20th, 2012, 06:36 PM   #55
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
Re: Full Paper - Conjecture 9-14-11

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherM
Proof that for any element 'j' of RI, 'j' is not a subset of the union of all 'g' in RI such that 'g' is not equal to 'j' is as follows: If I union two elements of RI together, then there are only two elements of RI that are a subset of the union (ie... the two sets that were unioned). If I union three sets, then there are only three sets that are a subset, and so on. If I union N elements of RI together, then there will be N elements of RI that are a subset of the union (again, the N sets that were unioned, not the N sets that were unioned and whatever additional ones you want to toss in there).


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherM
no using hyper-reals here (I do not believe in them).
No one here is.
CRGreathouse is offline  
February 22nd, 2012, 06:13 PM   #56
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 15
Thanks: 0

Re: Full Paper - Conjecture 9-14-11

We are back to where we started then C-Sheaves. You feel statement #1 implies statement #2:

1) For each element rj in g(r), there exists a q such that rj is in g(q)

implies

2) For all elements rj in g(r), there exists a q in such that rj is in g(q)


I say statement #3 implies statement #4 using equal logic:

3) For each element g(q), there exists an rj in g(r) such that rj is not an element of g(q)

implies

4) For all elements g(q), there exists an rj in g(r) such that rj is not an element of g(q)

Statement #5 is proof of statement number #4:

5) For any q and r in I where q is not equal to r, g(q) is not equal to g(r), g(q) is not a subset of g(r), and g(r) is not a subset of g(q)

...

The axiom of union says nothing about having to have an enumerable sequence, so you can stop trying to form them. The least upper bound of RI is not g(.111...), as g(.111...) is actually an element of RI whereas N is not an element of N. Further, if you are unioning elements of RI together, the least upper bound is not g(r), but r.

The axiom of choice implies the well ordering theorem in ZF set theory and RI is put into one-to-one correspondence with the powerset of integers, so RI is well ordered. If RI is well ordered, then the greatest element of RI would be g(.111...). If you approach g(.111...) but refuse to equal it using an enumerable sequence (why not use all elements of RI?), then again, I do not readily accept your logic. You will have to do better.

CR, put down the bag of potato chips, step away from the computer, and get some sunshine or something...
ChristopherM is offline  
February 22nd, 2012, 10:50 PM   #57
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2012

Posts: 17
Thanks: 0

Re: Full Paper - Conjecture 9-14-11

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGreathouse
Amen.

ChristopherM: I give up.
Categories+Sheaves is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
conjecture, full, paper



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Conjecture on cycle length and primes : prime abc conjecture miket Number Theory 5 May 15th, 2013 05:35 PM
Enchev's conjecture - Goldbach's conjecture for twin pairs enchev_eg Number Theory 30 September 28th, 2010 08:43 PM
full sequence Iran_rezayi Number Theory 1 December 6th, 2009 12:36 PM
full order observer joop Linear Algebra 0 July 6th, 2009 02:12 AM
please help me in this the full steps please tmn50 Math Events 10 May 8th, 2009 02:59 PM





Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.