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 nonfinite (it is not defined only up to, say 10) 
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. 
May 27th, 2016, 04:20 PM  #33  
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,281 Thanks: 1965  Quote:
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.  
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:
Last edited by skipjack; May 27th, 2016 at 04:33 PM. 
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:
 
May 31st, 2016, 05:47 AM  #36  
Banned Camp Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,720 Thanks: 124  Quote:
.33333........ is a nonterminating 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.  
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? 
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  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. 
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. 
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. 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. 

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 