My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Real Analysis

Real Analysis Real Analysis Math Forum


Thanks Tree2Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
July 17th, 2017, 10:31 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 142
Thanks: 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Both infinite sequences can be uniquely associated with a natural number.
Sure, that's what you SAY! I want you to actually PROVE it.
Micrm@ss is offline  
 
July 17th, 2017, 02:46 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,174
Thanks: 90

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micrm@ss View Post
Sure, that's what you SAY! I want you to actually PROVE it.
Definition of binary (decimal) representation of a natural number.

It seems you believe there is a largest natural number.
zylo is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 02:54 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 142
Thanks: 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Definition of binary (decimal) representation of a natural number.
OK, please give me that definition. Then prove me that every decimal representation corresponds to a natural number in a unique way and vice versa.

Come on, don't just state things. Actually prove them too! I'd prefer if you'd rely on the Peano axioms alone, but hey, it's up to you.
Micrm@ss is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 03:39 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,174
Thanks: 90

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micrm@ss View Post
OK, please give me that definition. Then prove me that every decimal representation corresponds to a natural number in a unique way and vice versa.

Come on, don't just state things. Actually prove them too! I'd prefer if you'd rely on the Peano axioms alone, but hey, it's up to you.
As I said before, it's a definition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
The infinite binary (or decimal) sequence $\displaystyle a_{1}a_{2}a_{3}.......$ defines a unique natural number or unique binary fraction, depending on interpretation:

Natural Number: $\displaystyle \sum a_{n}2^{n}$ which approaches a unique natural number as n -> infnity.
Binary Fraction: $\displaystyle \sum a_{n}2^{-n}$ which approaches a unique fraction in [0,1) as n -> infinity.

Note the unique association between natural number and binary fraction.
What is your definition?

If any a$\displaystyle _{n}$'s are different, the N's are different.

If you can conceive of an arbitrary small $\displaystyle \delta$, then you should be able to conceive of an arbitrarily large 1/$\displaystyle \delta$.

What is pi? 3.141592654......, by definition. It's the unique infinite sequence(s) that define pi.

EDIT:

If N=$\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_{n}\times 10^{n}$ then N+1 is of the same form.
If N=$\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_{n}\times 10^{n}$ is a natural number, then so is it for n=n+1.
By elementary arithmetic.

Last edited by zylo; July 17th, 2017 at 04:05 PM.
zylo is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 04:12 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2009

Posts: 142
Thanks: 60

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
What is pi? 3.141592654......, by definition.
That's a rather bad definition since it doesn't define pi uniquely. The problem is that we don't know all the digits of pi, so we shouldn't define pi by its decimal expansion. Not saying that pi doesn't have a decimal expansion, it's just not possible to define pi this way.

So perhaps let us start this way. What is your definition of the natural numbers and of the real numbers?

Last edited by skipjack; July 17th, 2017 at 04:17 PM.
Micrm@ss is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 04:18 PM   #36
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 18,140
Thanks: 1415

As you, zylo, referred to a definition to support your assertion, the onus is on you to provide that definition, not Micrm@ss. I don't know of any accepted definition that supports your assertion that any infinite binary sequence defines a unique natural number. Your mention of pi isn't relevant in this matter, as pi isn't a natural number (it's a real number, though).
skipjack is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 06:27 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 310
Thanks: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
I don't know of any accepted definition that supports your assertion that any infinite binary sequence defines a unique natural number.
Due Cantor's Diagonal Argument, at best zylo you can only have a surjection from the infinite binary sequences onto the natural numbers that is not 1-to-1.

Naturally, there will be an infinite number of binary sequences for each natural number. There are infinitely many surjective mappings from the set of infinite binary sequences onto the natural numbers.

Instead of trying to contradict Cantor's Diagonal Argument (which is still your underlying focus here...), I challenge you to try and do the opposite. Try to prove to yourself that it is true. And by that, I do not simply mean for you to try and believe in the theorem, I mean for you to try and prove to your own satisfaction that it is true.

In the end, you will never disprove Cantor's Theorem. It's not possible to disprove. Your best shot is to wage war on any use of the axiom of infinity.

Set theory's current state of affairs is one of "assume a certain axiom or conjecture, and then X is (not) provable, but don't, and then Y is (not) provable." The continuum hypothesis is one example. Given the standard axioms, we can neither prove nor disprove it. We can conjecture the hypothesis is true and derive certain results, but we can likewise conjecture it is false and derive other results. In a sense, it isn't math any more. Hugh Woodin makes a similar comment in his lecture here (he is an extremely respected set theorist).




My personal intuition is that the axiom of infinity, once accepted, will always lead to uncertainty. Compare that intuition with Gödel's incompleteness theorems showing that a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is not possible.

If you want to waste your life slaving away trying to disprove a theorem you simply cannot disprove, then I'm sorry to hear that. Your motivation for doing so cannot be sane, quite frankly. It's like flapping your arms because you're convinced you can fly.

But, if you want to try and get onto the forefront of set theory, perhaps there is something more left to prove. Find a resolution to Scott's theorem by showing whether or not a measurable cardinal exists (ie, if there exists a measurable cardinal, then $V \neq L$). Perhaps that would net you a Nobel Prize. In the very least, your name would go down in history (that appears to be your delusional goal with respect to disproving Cantor's Theorem...).
AplanisTophet is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 08:16 PM   #38
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,030
Thanks: 2341

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by AplanisTophet View Post
Perhaps that would net you a Nobel Prize.
Somewhat unlikely, since there is no Nobel Prize for mathematics.
Thanks from AplanisTophet
v8archie is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 08:18 PM   #39
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,030
Thanks: 2341

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
As I said before, it's a definition.
It's not anybody's definition but your own. It doesn't agree with anybody else's definition either, so whatever results you get from it are nothing to do with anybody else's mathematics: specifically Cantor's.
v8archie is offline  
July 17th, 2017, 08:19 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2014
From: USA

Posts: 310
Thanks: 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
Somewhat unlikely, since there is no Nobel Prize for mathematics.
Fields Medal perhaps then.

There have been a number of prizes awarded to mathematicians, but these were for their contributions to Physics. Wooden also discusses set theory's potential application to Physics in the above lecture, but I have my doubts...

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac...urs/Nobel.html

Last edited by AplanisTophet; July 17th, 2017 at 08:22 PM.
AplanisTophet is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Real Analysis

Tags
binary, blah, infinite, natural, number, sequence



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Infinite Decimal is a Natural Number zylo Topology 25 June 5th, 2016 12:55 AM
Real Number as Binary Sequence zylo Topology 8 April 8th, 2016 09:19 PM
binary number system Zman15 Elementary Math 10 March 28th, 2015 07:42 AM
natural number multiple of another number if its digit sum equal to that number Shen Elementary Math 2 June 5th, 2014 08:50 AM
Infinite set contains an infinite number of subsets durky Abstract Algebra 1 March 15th, 2012 12:28 PM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.