My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Topology

Topology Topology Math Forum


Thanks Tree8Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
May 27th, 2016, 02:40 PM   #31
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

f(n) =14159.. to n places is defined and a natural number for all n.

So it is defined for infinite n with infinity defined as non-finite (it is not defined only up to, say 10)
zylo is offline  
 
May 27th, 2016, 03:00 PM   #32
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,599
Thanks: 2587

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
So you now think there is an infinite natural number despite it going against the definitions?

When we define something for all natural numbers $n$, it means that there is no finite upper limit on $n$. It can get arbitrarily large, but remains finite.

Last edited by v8archie; May 27th, 2016 at 03:03 PM.
v8archie is online now  
May 27th, 2016, 04:20 PM   #33
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,281
Thanks: 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Given pi = 3.1415926... , I am claiming that the natural number whose decimal representation is 1415926... to n places exists for every n.
Consider this (non-terminating) sequence of natural numbers:
1
14
141
1415
14159
141592
1415926
.
.
.
On each successive line of the above, one further digit of the decimal expansion of $\pi$-3 (without the leading ".") is given. Similarly, any number between 0 and 1 corresponds to a sequence of natural numbers. This does not tell you whether or not the set of all numbers between 0 and 1 is countable.
skipjack is offline  
May 27th, 2016, 04:31 PM   #34
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,599
Thanks: 2587

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
There are two critical points to skipjack's post:
  1. $\pi$-3 is not an element of the sequence he presents; and
  2. there are uncountably many such sequences.

Last edited by skipjack; May 27th, 2016 at 04:33 PM.
v8archie is online now  
May 27th, 2016, 04:47 PM   #35
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,281
Thanks: 1965

Although that second point is true, I didn't include a proof that it's true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
f(n) =14159.. to n places is defined and a natural number for all n.
That's correct, but the fact that f(n) is a natural number for every natural number n does not imply that the non-terminating sequence 1415926... is a natural number. You've already defined a natural number here, where you stated explicitly that it has a number of digits, n, that must be finite (which isn't true of a non-terminating sequence).
skipjack is offline  
May 31st, 2016, 05:47 AM   #36
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by skipjack View Post
You've already defined a natural number here, where you stated explicitly that it has a number of digits, n, that must be finite (which isn't true of a non-terminating sequence).
1,2,3,4,5,......... is a non terminating sequence.
.33333........ is a non-terminating sequence:
.3(1).3(2).3(3).3(4).3(5)

This is what I said in your reference:
"The definitions hold for every finite n, but not for n=∞ (undefined)."

Unless you take the definition of infinity as "for all n," as illustrated below:

If ri is a decimal digit,
r1r2.....rn is a natural number for all any n.
.r1r2.....rn is a decimal fraction for all any n.

1:1 correspondence between decimal fractions and natural numbers:
0$\displaystyle \leq$x<.1 add .1 and remove decimal point:
.00001...->.10001->10001
.1$\displaystyle \leq$x<1 remove decimal point:
.14159....->14159.....
.333333.....->3333....

Remove trailing 0's.
zylo is offline  
May 31st, 2016, 07:23 AM   #37
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 20,281
Thanks: 1965

You chose to provide a definition of any natural number, n, that was finite. You then stated that your definition was valid for every finite n (as being finite and having a finite number of significant digits amount to the same thing). You also stated "but not for n=∞ (undefined)" . . . what exactly did you mean by that?

Do you agree that your statements appeared to agree that every natural number is finite?

Do you agree that you haven't provided any definition of a natural number that isn't finite?

Do you agree that all the accepted definitions of a natural number that were in use when Cantor was alive require that such a number is finite?

What do you mean by "all any"? Where has anybody else used it?

Do you agree that the index variable used to reference any individual member of an enumeration (as that concept was understood in Cantor's time) was required to have a finite value?
skipjack is offline  
May 31st, 2016, 09:37 AM   #38
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,599
Thanks: 2587

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Unless you take the definition of infinity as "for all n,"
That's not a definition that any mathematician recognises. I don't think it even makes any sense.

An infinite thing is the complement to the set of all finite things in the set of things. So an infinite sequence is a sequence that is not finite.

A finite sequence is characterised by having a finite number of elements. It terminates. An infinite sequence, being the complement of this set, therefore does not terminate.
v8archie is online now  
June 24th, 2016, 09:06 AM   #39
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,720
Thanks: 124

Finite: A natural number

Infinite: All the natural numbers

"The natural numbers are finite" is ambiguous, and hence tricky.

If it means individually, it is correct. If it means collectively, it is incorrect.

Last edited by skipjack; June 25th, 2016 at 09:23 PM.
zylo is offline  
June 24th, 2016, 10:16 AM   #40
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,599
Thanks: 2587

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
What you have written (in that post) is mostly correct but they are not definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
"The natural numbers are finite" is ambiguous.
It's not ambiguous. The natural numbers are finite (that's a property that every one of them holds). The set of natural numbers is infinite (that's a property of the set, not of its elements, which are natural numbers).

Last edited by skipjack; June 25th, 2016 at 09:36 PM.
v8archie is online now  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Topology

Tags
countable, numbers, real



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Real Numbers are Countable zylo Math 24 February 29th, 2016 09:46 AM
The real numbers are countable zylo Topology 35 January 29th, 2016 07:23 PM
Real numbers Congeniality Math Books 2 June 10th, 2015 09:25 AM
Real numbers greg1313 Applied Math 2 August 11th, 2011 04:45 AM
The Real Line & Countable Complement Topology- not Compact? TTB3 Topology 1 December 22nd, 2008 05:30 PM





Copyright © 2019 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.