My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Topology

Topology Topology Math Forum


Thanks Tree8Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
June 24th, 2016, 10:32 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 683
Thanks: 284

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
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.
Zylo's posts repeatedly make the same error of confusing the attributes of the members of a set with the number of members of the set.

He thinks it is a contradiction to say that each member of the set of natural numbers is finite, but the number of members of the set is infinite. Bizarre.

Last edited by skipjack; June 25th, 2016 at 08:37 PM.
JeffM1 is offline  
 
June 24th, 2016, 12:38 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: The backwoods of Northern Ontario

Posts: 370
Thanks: 68

But he indicated that to say, "The natural numbers collectively are finite" is false. Isn't that another way of saying that the number of elements in the set of natural numbers is infinite?

Perhaps to be clear, it would have been better for him to have said, "To say, 'The natural numbers collectively are finite in number' is false."
Timios is offline  
June 24th, 2016, 02:05 PM   #43
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,854
Thanks: 2228

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timios View Post
But he indicated that to say, "The natural numbers collectively are finite" is false.
He is deliberately using language that can be misunderstood in order to later make false claims about countability and Cantor's diagonal argument.

This is why he highlights the two possible meanings. At some point he is going to reach the sentence with one meaning and then interpret it using the other.

Or perhaps I'm doing him a disservice and he really is incapable of distinguishing between a set and its elements despite having had the difference highlighted to him many times.
v8archie is offline  
June 24th, 2016, 10:28 PM   #44
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 17,490
Thanks: 1314

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Finite: A natural number
Infinite: All the natural numbers
Below is a question for you, zylo.

Is it incorrect to state that a "countably infinite sequence of digits is a natural number"?
skipjack is online now  
June 25th, 2016, 06:17 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 1,079
Thanks: 87

n binary digits define 2^n natural numbers for every natural number n.

Cantor's proof fails.
The reals are countable.

Last edited by skipjack; June 25th, 2016 at 08:49 PM.
zylo is offline  
June 25th, 2016, 06:46 AM   #46
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,854
Thanks: 2228

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Only for natural numbers $n$ and thus only for finite sequences. Cantor doesn't talk about finite sequences. Even if the diagonal argument were flawed, there are other proofs that the reals are uncountable, so you are completely wrong.

You are obviously incapable of rational thought on this subject.

You have done exactly as I predicted in using the artificial "ambiguity" that you set up in exactly the way I predicted that you would.
v8archie is offline  
June 25th, 2016, 06:56 AM   #47
Math Team
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: Alabama

Posts: 2,518
Thanks: 641

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
n binary digits define 2^n natural numbers for every natural number n.
This statement is true. Unfortunately, you do not know what it means!

For any finite number n, n binary digits define 2^n natural numbers. You are immediately extending that to a (countably) infinite set of digits without justifying the jump.

Last edited by skipjack; June 25th, 2016 at 08:44 PM.
Country Boy is offline  
June 25th, 2016, 05:33 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 683
Thanks: 284

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
n binary digits define 2^n natural numbers for every natural number n.

Cantors proof fails.
The reals are countable.
n binary digits define 2^n natural numbers for every natural number n.[/U][/B]

And this is totally irrelevant to real numbers.

I feel a singularity in the derp field approaching.

Question: how many binary digits does it take to define all natural numbers?

Let's say it is p. So how many binary digits does it take to define $2^p + 10.$

EDIT: And what is magical about binary digits anyway?

Last edited by skipjack; June 25th, 2016 at 08:45 PM.
JeffM1 is offline  
June 25th, 2016, 08:47 PM   #49
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 17,490
Thanks: 1314

derp?
skipjack is online now  
June 25th, 2016, 08:52 PM   #50
Newbie
 
duyen2121's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: ha noi

Posts: 2
Thanks: 2

Same applies for binary digits.

Thanks from manus
duyen2121 is offline  
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 08:25 AM
Real numbers greg1313 Applied Math 2 August 11th, 2011 03:45 AM
The Real Line & Countable Complement Topology- not Compact? TTB3 Topology 1 December 22nd, 2008 05:30 PM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.