SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity
in [Physics]
|
Prev: BP's bid to stem gusher stalled over stuck saw Meantime, oil drifts to within 9 miles of Pensacola beaches WITH ONE HOUR ONLY REQUIRED TO CHOKE THAT WELL
Next: CO2, Global Warming and the Royal Society
From: MoeBlee on 4 Jun 2010 12:06 On Jun 2, 8:00 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Assume a large/infinite room full of boxes with fridge magnets in the boxes that are any natural number, and the boxes have a unique > number written on them. > > "Which box contains the numbers of all the boxes that don't contain their own number ?" > > is proven (by Cantor) to be nonexistent. That's garbled. Cantor didn't prove a QUESTION to be nonexistent. Also, you've left out the crucial "and only" clause. Maybe what you mean is this: Suppose there is a room with boxes in it, such that each box in the room has one or more (or, could be zero or more, too) numbers in it, and each box in the room has a label number. Is there a box in the room that has in it all and only the label numbers of boxes that do not have in them their own label number? There is no such box, since if there is such a box, then the label number of the box is in the box if and only if the label number of the box is not in the box. > Is the following statement TRUE or FALSE? > > << The fact that there is no box that contains the numbers of all the boxes >> > << that don't contain their own number proves that higher infinities exist. >> That assumes a fact that you've miststated. A correct statement is: There is no box that contains the label numbers of all AND ONLY those boxes that don't contain their own label number. Also, the word 'prove' is ambiguous. In formal mathematics, we prove sentences relative to formal systems, while also 'prove' means to provide convincing basis for belief (or something to that effect). Your example about the boxes is an analogy of a proof in certain formal systems that no set is equinumerous with its power set, and also an analogy with an argument, aside from any formal system, that many mathematicians take as convincing toward the conclusion that no set is equinumerous with its power set, and such proofs, along with other principles, lead to a proof that there exist sets that are uncountable. What's your point in asking the question? MoeBlee
From: dannas on 4 Jun 2010 13:19 "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:86sbllF4jpU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "jbriggs444" <jbriggs444(a)gmail.com> wrote... >> On Jun 4, 2:09 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> "Transfer Principle" <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Jun 2, 6:00 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> No explanations or you will spoil the poll, just TRUE or FALSE. >>> >> Is the 'missing box (set)' central to the powerset proof of >>> >> uncountable infinity? >>> >>> > Ah, a poll. I remember making a big deal about a poll to >>> > determine what most people believe about 0.999.... >>> >>> > Here's how I think this poll should be asked: >>> >>> > "Do you believe that there are more reals than naturals?" >>> >>> > Note that this is _not_ the same as, "do you believe that >>> > _ZFC_ proves that there are more reals than naturals?" For >>> > this isn't open to a vote at all -- there is no debate >>> > that the uncountability of the reals is a theorem of ZFC. >>> >>> > Similarly, "Do you believe that CH is true?" is also a >>> > question that can be asked in a poll. It's often said that >>> > most set theorists believe that CH is false, while many >>> > mathematicians who aren't set theorists believe that CH is >>> > in fact true. I wouldn't mind seeing a poll to confirm >>> > this common opinion. Of course, "Do you believe that ZFC >>> > proves CH?" isn't open to debate, since it's known that >>> > ZFC proves neither CH nor its negation. >>> >>> > But the difference between CH and the uncountability of >>> > the reals is that the former is undecidable in ZFC, while >>> > the latter is provable in ZFC. Those for whom ZFC is the >>> > preferred theory are likely to question the legitimacy of >>> > any poll in which a majority believe in any statement >>> > refuted by ZFC. I suspect that they'd consider CH to be a >>> > legitimate poll question, but not the uncountability of >>> > the reals (even though the former asks whether card(R) is >>> > greater than aleph_1, while the latter asks whether it is >>> > greater than aleph_0). >>> >>> > So far, it doesn't appear that Herc's poll is working. In >>> > the same way, I'd like to see a poll that asks whether >>> > one believes that 0.999... is equal to 1 (which isn't the >>> > same as asking whether _ZFC_ proves it), but I doubt that >>> > those who work in ZFC will accept any such poll (unless >>> > it establishes that 0.999... is indeed 1). Any poll that >>> > doesn't establish what ZFC proves is automatically flawed. >> >> ZFC doesn't prove much about whether 0.999... is equal to 1. There's >> a question of notation to be ironed out before the question of >> equality >> can be taken up. >> >> Once you've ironed out the notation, there may not be much left >> to prove. >> >>> Just answer the question. this isn't sci.math.zfc >>> >>> For a (infinite) list of uniquely numbered boxes containing (possibly >>> infinite amount of) fridge magnet numbers >> >> Pretty ambiguous wording... >> >> >>> 1/ Is there a box that contains the numbers of all the boxes that don't >>> contain their own number? >> >> Suppose there is a labelled "1" containing a fridge magnet in the >> shape of the number 1. >> Suppose that all other boxes in the room (if any) also contain a >> fridge magnet in the >> shape of their number. >> >> Does box number 1 box satisfy the condition intended in the question? >> >> I know it satisfies the condition _stated_ in the question. >> >> >> What about box number 6 if we swap fridge magnets with box number 9? >> >> >> What about the fact that a room with an infinite number of boxes or a >> box with an infinite number of fridge magnets >> are both (as far as we can tell) physical impossibilities? Does this >> mean that the question assumes a >> contradiction so that all possible answers are equally, vacuously >> correct. > > > What are you complaining about? There's some boxes with numbers in them, > that's it! > what about the boxes that dont? Why leave them out? Isn''t there an infinity of them? > It's meant to simplify the problem and allow you to conceptualize it, not > open up turgid interpretations > to avoid the frickin simple question. > > Herc
From: MoeBlee on 4 Jun 2010 13:47 On Jun 4, 11:06 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Your example about the boxes is an analogy of a proof in certain > formal systems that no set is equinumerous with its power set, and > also an analogy with an argument, aside from any formal system, that > many mathematicians take as convincing toward the conclusion that no > set is equinumerous with its power set, and such proofs, along with > other principles, lead to a proof that there exist sets that are > uncountable. P.S. The other principles I have in mind are (1) that every set has a power set and (2) that there exists an infinite set. So Cantor's theorem (which depends only on the axiom schema of separation and the axiom of extensionality, if I recall) along with the principles that every set has a power set (the power set axiom) and that there exists an infinite set (derivable from the axiom of infinity) provide that there exists an uncountable set. The proof relies only on ordinary logic for mathematics (and even a narrower version that permits only intuitionistic inferences) along with the above mentioned principles (or axioms). Of course, one may decline to accept the very modest logic or decline to accept the principles (axioms) used. But that the statement "there exist uncountable sets" does follow by said logic from said axioms is (upon formalization) machine checkable and, even more basically, checkable by ordinary human inspection. I don't know specifically which rule(s) of logic or set theoretic axiom(s) you decline, if any. MoeBlee
From: MoeBlee on 4 Jun 2010 14:05 On Jun 4, 12:55 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > it's known thatZFCproves neither CH nor its negation. It's known to you? You know that ZF(C) is consistent? MoeBlee
From: Transfer Principle on 4 Jun 2010 14:37
On Jun 4, 11:05 am, MoeBlee <jazzm...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 12:55 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > it's known thatZFCproves neither CH nor its negation. > It's known to you? You know that ZF(C) is consistent? How about this: ZFC proves _neither_ or _both_ of CH and its negation (Goedel and Cohen)? Here, I was trying to distinguish between those statements like CH, which are undecidable in ZFC, and those like "R is uncountable," which are definitely _decidable_ in ZFC. In particular, the results of a poll which asks "Is CH true?" are more likely to be accepted by those who use ZFC than the results of a poll "Is R uncountable," especially if a majority votes "no." |