My Math Forum  

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

Number Theory Number Theory Math Forum


Thanks Tree15Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
February 20th, 2018, 11:41 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

"You are talking the same old unmitigated nonsense again."* is not a refutation of Cantor's Diagonal Argument.

* v8archie, last post

Last edited by zylo; February 20th, 2018 at 11:46 AM.
zylo is offline  
 
February 20th, 2018, 12:02 PM   #12
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,509
Thanks: 2514

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
No, but then I'm not trying to refute it.
v8archie is offline  
February 20th, 2018, 12:57 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
No, but then I'm not trying to refute it.
Would someone else be justified in using your argument to refute it?

What amazes me is that a nonsensical statement passes unnoticed, and buries a serious contribution, but when I attempt to respond to a serious question to my thread in "Real Analysis," Real Numbers and Limits, the thread is closed.
zylo is offline  
February 20th, 2018, 02:15 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Arlington, VA

Posts: 394
Thanks: 27

Math Focus: Number theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maschke View Post
Hi Loren. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Can you provide some context? Limits in the real numbers are defined by quantifying over uncountable sets. When we say, "for every epsilon ..." and then give the rest of the modern formal definition, we are implicitly quantifying over uncountably many potential epsilons. This has philosophical and historical implications when we are talking about how the limit concept replaced the old idea of infinitesimals.

__________

You use the phrase, "this difference, the limit function minus f(a) itself ..." and asked if this is a cardinality. But it's a NUMBER, not a set. [Numbers are ultimately sets, but not in this context!]

For example let $f(x) = 0$ if $x \neq 0$, and $f(0) = 47$. In other words when you input anything other than $0$ into the function, you get back $0$. But when you put in $0$, you get $47$.

Now in this case the limit of $f$ as $x \to 0$ is $0$. But $f(0) = 47$. So the difference of the limit of the function at that point, and the value of the function at that point, is $47$. It's a number.

Does that make sense? Remember, a function doesn't even need to have a value at a given point in order to have a limit there.

__________

Well, the cardinality of the continuum is the problem that's been driving set theory since Cantor first asked the question. Our usual axioms don't tell us the cardinality of the real number continuum, and the hunt for new axioms hasn't resolved the question. Some think that asking about the cardinality of the continuum is not a meaningful question. Other set theorists have esoteric approaches such as Ultimate-L and the set-theoretic multiverse. [Those are ideas I've read a little about. I would not want to give the impression I know what they mean].

These are very deep waters. Nobody has any idea what is the cardinality of the continuum. We know it's $2^{\aleph_0}$, but nobody has any idea what cardinal that is.

__________


Does this relate to your previous question about space-filling curves? They are generally surjections but not bijections. They hit some points more than once. There's a bijection between the real numbers and the unit square, if that's what you mean by a finite surface. You can get a bijection of the unit interval to the unit square by interleaving the digits of the decimal expansions of the coordinates of the points in the square. Then you can biject the unit interval to the reals. And you have to wave your hands at the .4999... = .5 problem. There are only countably many of those pesky things so you can either ignore them or sit down and figure out how to deal with them explicitly.

Is anything I wrote helpful? I'm not sure what is the intent of your questions.

Maschke, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions directly and thoroughly. You would do well teaching undergraduate math majors. You essentially answered my questions, written or surmised, and brought forth new lines of thought. I can largely understand your interpretations. You got it.

Keep on topic. You all see most of my intent although without formal descriptions from me, and contribute what is condensed by Maschke in most helpful form.

Btw, what significance does "47" have?
Loren is online now  
February 20th, 2018, 02:25 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Arlington, VA

Posts: 394
Thanks: 27

Math Focus: Number theory
Is "interleaving" anything like the diagonal argument?
Loren is online now  
February 20th, 2018, 02:31 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2012

Posts: 2,098
Thanks: 602

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren View Post
Maschke, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions directly and thoroughly. You would do well teaching undergraduate math majors. You essentially answered my questions, written or surmised, and brought forth new lines of thought. I can largely understand your interpretations. You got it.

Keep on topic. You all see most of my intent although without formal descriptions from me, and contribute what is condensed by Maschke in most helpful form.

Btw, what significance does "47" have?
So glad I was able to hit the mark on this one. 47 is my favorite random-sounding integer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren View Post
Is "interleaving" anything like the diagonal argument?
Interleaving works like this. Say you have a point $(x,y)$ in the unit square, and say that the decimal expression of $x$ is $.x_1 x_2 x_3 \dots$ and the decimal expression of $y$ is $.y_1 y_2 y_3 \dots$.

Then you can map the pair $(x,y)$ to the real number $.x_1 y_1 x_2 y_2 x_3 y_3 \dots$. Likewise given the decimal expression for some real number in the unit interval, you can reverse the process to get a pair of reals representing the coordinates of some point in the unit square.

You can do the trick for any $n$-dimensional Euclidean space. Cantor was shocked to discover this. He thought each dimension up gave you a higher cardinality. Turns out to be false. The line, the plane, 3-space, 4-space, etc. all have exactly the same cardinality.
Thanks from topsquark and Loren

Last edited by Maschke; February 20th, 2018 at 02:47 PM.
Maschke is offline  
February 20th, 2018, 03:11 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2015
From: Arlington, VA

Posts: 394
Thanks: 27

Math Focus: Number theory
Does the uncountability over the set of epsilons correspond to a particular cardinality?

Can the set of cardinal numbers (ordinal numbers?) itself belong to a set with its own cardinality (ordinality?), or is this "circular" reasoning?

Do we know somethings about "2 to the Alef" by being able to define a "greater" cardinal set?

Where can I find examples of cardinal number sets (like that of the set of all curves in space)?
Loren is online now  
February 20th, 2018, 06:11 PM   #18
Global Moderator
 
greg1313's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2008
From: London, Ontario, Canada - The Forest City

Posts: 7,884
Thanks: 1088

Math Focus: Elementary mathematics and beyond
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Cardinality of the reals: countable.
So we're back to this are we? There's no point in discussing it, as you have consistently shown.
Thanks from topsquark

Last edited by greg1313; February 21st, 2018 at 12:34 PM.
greg1313 is offline  
February 20th, 2018, 09:42 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 628
Thanks: 190

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loren View Post
Does the uncountability over the set of epsilons correspond to a particular cardinality?
Yes, the amount of epsilons is $2^{\aleph_0}$. Again, this is our only way to express it. We don't know what cardinality this is, except from this.

Quote:
Can the set of cardinal numbers (ordinal numbers?) itself belong to a set with its own cardinality (ordinality?), or is this "circular" reasoning?
The cardinal numbers/ordinal numbers do not form a set. The circular reasoning you mentioned is valid and very important. It is a paradox called the Burali-Forti paradox. The only way out is not to let the cardinal/ordinal numbers be a set. So they're only a what is called a proper class.
Thanks from Maschke, topsquark and Loren
Micrm@ss is offline  
February 21st, 2018, 08:52 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg1313 View Post
So we're back to this are we? There's no point in discussing it, as you have consistently shown. If you continue to post off-topic nonsense you will be banned.
The OP subject is cardinaity of the reals and limits, which I directly addressed.

Why can't I express my opinion like everyone else in this thread? What are you afraid of? Part of what I have said I said about 1000 posts ago. Has nothing in this thread ever been said before?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
The real numbers are given by the unique limiting sequence (not the limit of the sequence), as n approaches "infinity," of n place decimals, which can be counted for all n.

Cardinality of the reals: countable.

EDIT:
Limits of the reals are a subset of the reals.
.3333...3m, any fixed m, to n places of 3's, has the limit as n approaches infinity, 1/3
In
Real Numbers and Limits
I wrote
"REAL NUMBERs are defined uniquely by "infinite" (unending) sequences of natural numbers. The sequence IS the real number.
LIMIT is a defined property of real numbers."

which is a simple, clear, logical, transparent foundation of real analysis, which is why I posted it in the Real Analysis forum.
This thread was closed when I tried to post an answer to a question.
zylo is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Number Theory

Tags
cardinality, limits, reals



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bases of the reals^2 Jaket1 Linear Algebra 5 October 18th, 2017 08:15 PM
Non-computable Reals AplanisTophet Number Theory 30 June 21st, 2017 10:25 AM
Reals Lalitha183 Abstract Algebra 3 June 2nd, 2017 11:02 PM
Cardinality of integers equals cardinality of reals BenFRayfield Number Theory 0 February 15th, 2014 03:55 PM
Independence of Reals mathbalarka Number Theory 1 May 9th, 2013 06:51 AM





Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.