My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Topology

Topology Topology Math Forum


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
July 5th, 2016, 01:55 PM   #11
Global Moderator
 
Joined: May 2007

Posts: 6,214
Thanks: 492

I surrender. I was trying to present a simplified proof based on measure theory without invoking measure theory.

The basic proof is simply the following:

The unit interval has measure 1.
Any countable set has measure 0.
Therefore, the unit interval is not countable.
mathman is offline  
 
July 5th, 2016, 02:58 PM   #12
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,557
Thanks: 2148

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Measure theory is not something I'm familiar with. That bald statement is very clear and obviously serves as a proof, but it hides all understanding of the issues. For someone not familiar with measure theory it raises more questions than it answers.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing if one has the time and the inclination to follow up on those questions. It's certainly something that has some interest for me, but it's not my top priority right now.
Thanks from manus
v8archie is online now  
July 5th, 2016, 04:01 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Berkeley, CA

Posts: 166
Thanks: 25

Math Focus: Elementary Number Theory, Algebraic NT, Analytic NT
@mathman,

Your proof is valid. For example, see Proposition 2.2 (d), Proposition 2.3 and Corollary 2.4 in this paper.
Petek is offline  
July 6th, 2016, 03:30 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 976
Thanks: 78

You can't compare distances with number of points because points have no measure (width), so the OP is meaningless. You can't use number of points as a distance. There is a distance between points, but a countably infinite number of points between them.

Therefore the OP and post #11 are incorrect.
Thanks from manus
zylo is offline  
July 6th, 2016, 04:55 PM   #15
Global Moderator
 
Joined: May 2007

Posts: 6,214
Thanks: 492

Quote:
Originally Posted by v8archie View Post
Measure theory is not something I'm familiar with. That bald statement is very clear and obviously serves as a proof, but it hides all understanding of the issues. For someone not familiar with measure theory it raises more questions than it answers.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing if one has the time and the inclination to follow up on those questions. It's certainly something that has some interest for me, but it's not my top priority right now.
That was the point of my original statement. I was trying to present a simplified version, so one would not have to learn measure theory to understand the proof.
mathman is offline  
July 16th, 2016, 01:53 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 976
Thanks: 78

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathman View Post
That was the point of my original statement. I was trying to present a simplified version, so one would not have to learn measure theory to understand the proof.
You don't need measure theory. If you have a 1 M long line and marbles that are .2 meters in dia, you can fit 1M/(.2M/marble) = 5 marbles in the line.

If the marbles have no width, the number of marbles is 1M/0, which is undefined and meaningless. To get a pure number (count) you have to have a dimension in numerator and denominator to cancel out.

You don't need abstract mathematics to think, on the contrary.
Thanks from manus
zylo is offline  
July 16th, 2016, 06:14 PM   #17
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,557
Thanks: 2148

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
You don't need measure theory. If you have a 1 M long line and marbles that are .2 meters in dia, you can fit 1M/(.2M/marble) = 5 marbles in the line.

If the marbles have no width, the number of marbles is 1M/0, which is undefined and meaningless. To get a pure number (count) you have to have a dimension in numerator and denominator to cancel out.

You don't need abstract mathematics to think, on the contrary.
This is just a statement that you don't understand the subject.
v8archie is online now  
July 17th, 2016, 01:06 PM   #18
Global Moderator
 
Joined: May 2007

Posts: 6,214
Thanks: 492

Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
You don't need measure theory. If you have a 1 M long line and marbles that are .2 meters in dia, you can fit 1M/(.2M/marble) = 5 marbles in the line.

If the marbles have no width, the number of marbles is 1M/0, which is undefined and meaningless. To get a pure number (count) you have to have a dimension in numerator and denominator to cancel out.

You don't need abstract mathematics to think, on the contrary.
If the number of marbles is countable, you can sum the zeros to get zero. That is why the number cannot be countable.
Thanks from v8archie
mathman is offline  
July 18th, 2016, 05:08 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2015
From: New Jersey

Posts: 976
Thanks: 78

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathman View Post
If the number of marbles is countable, you can sum the zeros to get zero. That is why the number cannot be countable.
Makes no sense. What is the size of a marble? If I have n marbles that fit into a unit length, the size of the marble is 1/n.
zylo is offline  
July 18th, 2016, 08:28 AM   #20
Math Team
 
Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 6,557
Thanks: 2148

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
Originally Posted by zylo View Post
Makes no sense.
The fact that you are not able to understand something is a sign of a flaw in your own intelligence, not in that of other people.
v8archie is online now  
Reply

  My Math Forum > College Math Forum > Topology

Tags
argument, cantor, diagonal, reals, uncountable



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cantor: The reals are uncountable zylo Topology 31 February 13th, 2016 05:44 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 07:22 AM
Cantorīs diagonal argument netzweltler Applied Math 191 November 7th, 2010 02:39 PM
Counting the reals: Cantor's Diagonal Proof ch00blet Applied Math 3 January 12th, 2010 12:50 PM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.