My Math Forum Summary of Cantor's Diagonal Argument is Wrong

 Topology Topology Math Forum

 April 4th, 2016, 07:53 AM #1 Banned Camp   Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,720 Thanks: 124 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 12:22 PM.
April 4th, 2016, 08:25 AM   #2
Global Moderator

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,370
Thanks: 2007

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo Let T be the set of all infinite binary sequences. T is obviously uncountable
Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo 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.

April 4th, 2016, 09:01 AM   #3
Banned Camp

Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

Quote:
 Originally Posted by skipjack 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

 April 4th, 2016, 09:27 AM #4 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,615 Thanks: 2604 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.
 April 4th, 2016, 12:12 PM #5 Banned Camp   Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,720 Thanks: 124 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.
April 4th, 2016, 12:19 PM   #6
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,615
Thanks: 2604

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo (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.

April 4th, 2016, 12:31 PM   #7
Global Moderator

Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,370
Thanks: 2007

Quote:
 Originally Posted by zylo . . . 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 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.

 April 4th, 2016, 12:52 PM #8 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,615 Thanks: 2604 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.
April 4th, 2016, 02:12 PM   #9
Banned Camp

Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

Quote:
 Originally Posted by v8archie 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, â€¦ , sn, â€¦ ."

Last edited by skipjack; April 4th, 2016 at 03:18 PM.

April 4th, 2016, 02:41 PM   #10
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,073
Thanks: 842

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

-Dan

Last edited by skipjack; April 4th, 2016 at 03:18 PM.

 Tags argument, cantor, diagonal, summary, wrong

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post zylo Topology 147 August 14th, 2016 07:40 PM zylo Topology 12 March 24th, 2016 09:53 AM zylo Math 22 January 26th, 2016 08:05 PM mjcguest Applied Math 9 July 25th, 2013 07:22 AM netzweltler Applied Math 191 November 7th, 2010 01:39 PM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top