My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Topology

Topology Topology Math Forum


Thanks Tree1Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
April 4th, 2016, 08:53 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Summary of Cantor's Diagonal Argument is Wrong

1) Cantor's Diagonal Argument is wrong because countably infinite binary sequences are natural numbers.

2) Cantor's Diagonal Argument fails because there is no natural number greater than all natural numbers.

3) Cantor's Diagonal Argument is not applicable for infinite binary sequences because countably infinite is a subset of infinite.

4) Without the point, every real number in [0,1) can be uniquely associated with a countably infinite binary sequence which is a natural number.
.00110....... -> 00110.......
0x2^{-1} + 0x2^{-2} + 1x2^{-3}+.... -> 0x2^{0} + 0x2^{1} + 1x2^{2} + ....
The reals are countable.

This is summarized here because it's buried in:
Cantor's Diagonal Argument. Infinity is Not a Number

Last edited by skipjack; April 4th, 2016 at 01:22 PM.
zylo is offline  
 
April 4th, 2016, 09:25 AM   #2
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 19,951
Thanks: 1842

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Let T be the set of all infinite binary sequences. T is obviously uncountable
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
The reals are countable.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Please explain which statement is incorrect.

You haven't proved your opening assertion (numbered 1), or given any examples to support it.

You haven't explained why your second and third points have any bearing on Cantor's diagonal argument. Also, you haven't explained which particular part of Cantor's argument is affected.

Do your points all occur in the thread you linked? I can't find them.
skipjack is offline  
April 4th, 2016, 10:01 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
Do your points all occur in the thread you linked? I can't find them.
Post #57:
s has more digits than any sequence in the list.
s is not in the list.
s is not in T.
Cantor's proof is wrong.

Post #86 and Post #90.

Also, Posts 35,42,50,53,61,71,81
zylo is offline  
April 4th, 2016, 10:27 AM   #4
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,508
Thanks: 2513

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
So this is yet another thread for you to post the same old rubbish with exactly the same stupid mistakes. This thread is pointless and utterly without value.
v8archie is offline  
April 4th, 2016, 01:12 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Let L be the list of ALL countably infinite binary sequences.

S is not in L
S is larger than any element of L because, whatever Sn is, S has "1" digits past the last "1" digit of Sn. (There is no natural number greater than all natural numbers).

If you don't accept the sentence in parentheses, you will never get it.
zylo is offline  
April 4th, 2016, 01:19 PM   #6
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,508
Thanks: 2513

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
(There is no natural number greater than all natural numbers).

If you don't accept the sentence in parentheses, you will never get it.
I realise that this is quite a groundbreaking discovery for you, but for most of us it is entirely obvious. Unfortunately, you have no idea how to use this fact correctly.
v8archie is offline  
April 4th, 2016, 01:31 PM   #7
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 19,951
Thanks: 1842

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
. . . countably infinite binary sequences are natural numbers.
You originally gave this as a generalization of the corresponding statement for finite binary sequences, but you never justified making the generalization. Not every generalization from finite to infinite is correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Let L be the list of ALL countably infinite binary sequences.
You haven't proved that such a list exists, so that is not a valid definition.
skipjack is offline  
April 4th, 2016, 01:52 PM   #8
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,508
Thanks: 2513

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
It's worth pointing out that even if such a list existed (which it doesn't) it would not be a unique list. This is a very trivial fact, but isn't reflected by zylo's statements.
v8archie is offline  
April 4th, 2016, 03:12 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,603
Thanks: 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
So this is yet another thread for you to post the same old rubbish with exactly the same stupid mistakes. This thread is pointless and utterly without value.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor...gonal_argument

"The diagonal argument was not Cantor's first proof of the uncountability of the real numbers; it was actually published much later than his first proof, which appeared in 1874.
Cantor's diagonal argument, was published in 1891 by Georg Cantor."
_____________________________________

In over 100yrs, the mathematicians still haven't gotten it right.
So it took me a few posts and a couple of weeks. Cut me some slack.

============================

"You haven't proved that such a list exists, so that is not a valid definition:" skipjack
As you well know, that's Cantor's assumption from which he tries (unsuccessfully) to draw a contradiction. Perhaps you should review Cantor's proof. There you will find:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor...gonal_argument
"He assumes for contradiction that T was countable. Then all its elements could be written as an enumeration s1, s2, … , sn, … ."

Last edited by skipjack; April 4th, 2016 at 04:18 PM.
zylo is offline  
April 4th, 2016, 03:41 PM   #10
Math Team
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 1,914
Thanks: 774

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
In over 100yrs, the mathematicians still haven't gotten it right.
Wow. Just. Wow.

-Dan

Last edited by skipjack; April 4th, 2016 at 04:18 PM.
topsquark is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Topology

Tags
argument, cantor, diagonal, summary, wrong



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cantor's Diagonal Argument. Infinity is Not a Number zylo Topology 147 August 14th, 2016 08:40 PM
Cantor's Diagonal Argument Reconsidered zylo Topology 12 March 24th, 2016 10:53 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 08:22 AM
Cantors diagonal argument netzweltler Applied Math 191 November 7th, 2010 02:39 PM





Copyright © 2018 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.