Why can no one in sci.math understand my simple point?
in [Logic]
|
From: Virgil on 23 Jun 2010 16:01 In article <1fe50c9e-496c-401c-aa55-306e93ae8844(a)s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 23 Jun., 13:54, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > On 23/06/2010 8:34 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23 Jun., 04:18, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> �wrote: > > >> On 23/06/2010 11:33 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > > >>> On 23/06/2010 11:03 AM, Virgil wrote: > > >>>> In article > > >>>> <2000e81b-7c5a-41be-b6af-98f96f2fb...(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > > >>>> WM<mueck...(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> �wrote: > > > > >>>>> On 22 Jun., 21:34, Virgil<Vir...(a)home.esc> �wrote: > > > > >>>>>>>> But (A0, A1, A2, ...) is obviously countable. Above you say it's > > >>>>>>>> "certainly > > >>>>>>>> not countable", but it is. > > > > >>>>>>> The set is certainly countable. But it cannot be written as a list > > > > >>>>>> But it HAS been written as a list (A0, A1, A2, ...), > > > > >>>>> Does this list contain the anti-diagonal of (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, > > >>>>> L0)? > > > > >>>> Since (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, L0) does not appear to be a list, why > > >>>> should there be any antidiagonal for it? > > > > >>> Ach! Let's scrap A0 - it's confusing. > > > > >>> If we let L_n be the nth element in the list L0, and An the > > >>> anti-diagonal of the An-1, An-2,...., A1, L_1, L_2, L_3,... > > > > >>> then > > > > >>> L_1 > > >>> A1 > > >>> L_2 > > >>> A2 > > >>> L_3 > > >>> A3 > > >>> L_4 > > >>> ... > > > > >>> is a list. I'm still thinking about that. > > > > >>> Sylvia. > > > > >> Hmm... > > > > >> A1 is the antidiagonal of L1 L2 L3... > > > > >> A2 is the antidiagonal of L1 A1 L2 L3... > > > > >> A3 is the antidiagonal of L1 A1 L2 A2 L3 L4... > > > > >> Each An is thus constructed from a list that is different from the list > > >> into which it is inserted. So the construction does not lead to a list > > >> that should contain its own anti-diagonal, and it doesn't. > > > > > Ln = > > > > > An > > > ... > > > A2 > > > A1 > > > A0 > > > L0 > > > > > Does your bijection contain the anti-diagonal of > > > (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, L0)? > > > > I don't understand why you've recast it back to that form. > > That is a an abbreviation of the construction I proposed. Of course > the "..." stand only for an infinite sequence of well defined digits > at finite places. Then your definition is flawed in one more way, and totally useless. One cannot have an antidiagonal of a list in which the elements are not all sequnces of the same type, and here, LO is not of the same type as A0 or A1 or A2 or any An. > > > You can't > > even form the anti-diagonal of that - what would the first digit of the > > antidiagonal be? > > What would the last digit of a normal Cantor-diagonal? In order to define a "Cantor antidiagonal' for a set of sequences, S, one must first have a bijection f:N -> S. WM has not made clear that he even has such a bijection, much less what it is like. > Why should the > first digit be more important than the last one? Why claim there is a "last one" when infinite sequences of digits don't have any "last ones"? > An infinite sequence > of digits (that is not converging and not defined by a finite formula, > like Cantor's diagonal sequence) is as undefined when the last digit > is missing as it is when the first digit is missing. I think WM's first digit is missing! The whole point of an infinite sequence is that there isn't any such thing as a "last"term. So any demand for one marks the demander as muddled.
From: Virgil on 23 Jun 2010 16:04 In article <71a50fc4-4bc5-46b5-9ef0-8dc08a2437d1(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 23 Jun., 14:24, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> writes: > > > Well, the algorithm is clearly computable. If you give me a purported > > > list of all computable numbers, I can compute a missing number. > > > > Give how? We can't in any literal sense be given infinitary objects such > > as an infinite list of computable reals. > > > > That is wrong. WM trying to correct Aatu? C'est rire!
From: Virgil on 23 Jun 2010 16:08 In article <88eea0Fh36U1(a)mid.individual.net>, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > On 23/06/2010 10:40 PM, WM wrote: > > On 23 Jun., 13:54, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> On 23/06/2010 8:34 PM, WM wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 23 Jun., 04:18, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >>>> On 23/06/2010 11:33 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> > >>>>> On 23/06/2010 11:03 AM, Virgil wrote: > >>>>>> In article > >>>>>> <2000e81b-7c5a-41be-b6af-98f96f2fb...(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, > >>>>>> WM<mueck...(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>> On 22 Jun., 21:34, Virgil<Vir...(a)home.esc> wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>>> But (A0, A1, A2, ...) is obviously countable. Above you say it's > >>>>>>>>>> "certainly > >>>>>>>>>> not countable", but it is. > >> > >>>>>>>>> The set is certainly countable. But it cannot be written as a list > >> > >>>>>>>> But it HAS been written as a list (A0, A1, A2, ...), > >> > >>>>>>> Does this list contain the anti-diagonal of (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, > >>>>>>> L0)? > >> > >>>>>> Since (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, L0) does not appear to be a list, why > >>>>>> should there be any antidiagonal for it? > >> > >>>>> Ach! Let's scrap A0 - it's confusing. > >> > >>>>> If we let L_n be the nth element in the list L0, and An the > >>>>> anti-diagonal of the An-1, An-2,...., A1, L_1, L_2, L_3,... > >> > >>>>> then > >> > >>>>> L_1 > >>>>> A1 > >>>>> L_2 > >>>>> A2 > >>>>> L_3 > >>>>> A3 > >>>>> L_4 > >>>>> ... > >> > >>>>> is a list. I'm still thinking about that. > >> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >> > >>>> Hmm... > >> > >>>> A1 is the antidiagonal of L1 L2 L3... > >> > >>>> A2 is the antidiagonal of L1 A1 L2 L3... > >> > >>>> A3 is the antidiagonal of L1 A1 L2 A2 L3 L4... > >> > >>>> Each An is thus constructed from a list that is different from the list > >>>> into which it is inserted. So the construction does not lead to a list > >>>> that should contain its own anti-diagonal, and it doesn't. > >> > >>> Ln = > >> > >>> An > >>> ... > >>> A2 > >>> A1 > >>> A0 > >>> L0 > >> > >>> Does your bijection contain the anti-diagonal of > >>> (..., An, ... A2, A1, A0, L0)? > >> > >> I don't understand why you've recast it back to that form. > > > > That is a an abbreviation of the construction I proposed. Of course > > the "..." stand only for an infinite sequence of well defined digits > > at finite places. > > > >> You can't > >> even form the anti-diagonal of that - what would the first digit of the > >> antidiagonal be? > > > > What would the last digit of a normal Cantor-diagonal? Why should the > > first digit be more important than the last one? An infinite sequence > > of digits (that is not converging and not defined by a finite formula, > > like Cantor's diagonal sequence) is as undefined when the last digit > > is missing as it is when the first digit is missing. > > Cantor doesn't rely on being able to identify a last digit. He's just > saying that no matter how far down the list you look, you'll find that > the element at that point doesn't match the anti-diagonal. But you can't > even begin to formulate his proof if you can't identify the first > element of the list (and hence first digit of the anti-diagonal) either. > > First and last are interchangeable, of course Not for infinite sequences when one of them clearly exists and the other clearly doesn't. The first ordinal number is 0. If first and last are so interchaneable, lets see WM interchange it with "the last ordinal number".
From: Virgil on 23 Jun 2010 16:15 In article <46cd79fe-ca18-4b2c-bcc4-5d2032fb3769(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 23 Jun., 14:51, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > Cantor doesn't rely on being able to identify a last digit. He's just > > saying that no matter how far down the list you look, you'll find that > > the element at that point doesn't match the anti-diagonal. > > > That is wrong. Cantor uses the alleged "fact", that infinity can be > completed, i.e., that that the infinite list can be finished. > If he would only assume what you say, then the anti-diagonal could > remain in the unknown part of the list. You know and appreciate that > after *any* line number n there are infinitely many more lines? > > > But you can't > > even begin to formulate his proof if you can't identify the first > > element of the list (and hence first digit of the anti-diagonal) either. > > Isn't it enough, also in my case, to know that every antidiagonal has > a first digit? No. You have to be able to tell how that, and any other digit of that "antidiagonal" was determined. In fact it has. Every antidiagonal is constructed from > a list with a first line (that is the previous antidiagonal) and the > remaining list. Every line has a finite number n. > > > > First and last are interchangeable, of course, but with your > > construction above, you can't specify either the first or the last. > > As I told you, my notation is only an abbreviation for the following > definition: > 1) Take a list L0 of all rational numbers. > 2) Construct its antidiagonal A0. > 3) Add it at position 0 to get (A0,L0) > 4) Construct the antidiagonal A1. > 5) and so on. > > There occurs never a problem, because we know Hilberts hotel, don't > we? There is also no problem in finding AN antidiagonal for the doubly open ended list (...,a2,a1,a0, LO.1, L0.2, L0.2, ...) once a surjection from N to it has been chosen.
From: Virgil on 23 Jun 2010 16:26
In article <e8d6cf87-4adf-492a-be49-04a4106e2dd5(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 23 Jun., 14:57, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> writes: > > > In fact it would be a lot easier if instead of reals, we talked about > > > sets of natural numbers, and instead of computable reals, we talked > > > about recursively enumerable sets of natural numbers. > > > > It would be even more easy if instead of the uncountability of the reals > > we talked about the standard proof of Cantor's theorem: > > > > �Let f be a function taking elements of a set A to subsets of A. There > > �is then a subset of A not in the range of f. For consider the set > > > > � �D = {x in A | x not in f(x)}. > > > > �There is no a in A such that f(a) = D: if there were, we'd have a in > > �f(a) iff a not in f(a), a contradiction. > > That could be a good proof, if we knew that all subsets of an infinite > set A would exist. > But already Fraenkel wrote in the third edition of > his famous book (1928, p. 279f) with respect to the axiom of power > set, that: der Begriff "Teilmenge� eine andere, wesentlich engere > Bedeutung hat als in der CANTORschen Mengenlehre. In dieser konnten > wir bei der Bildung der Potenzmenge Um eine beliebige Gesamtheit von > Elementen aus m zu einer Teilmenge von m zusammenfassen und waren dann > sicher, da� diese sich unter den Elementen von Um findet. Jetzt ist > uns eine derartige, weitgehende Freiheit gew�hrende "Bildung� einer > Teilmenge von m nicht gestattet, also auch ihr Auftreten unter den > Elementen von Um keineswegs gesichert. (Contrary to the second edition > of 1923, Fraenkel now knew Skolem's proof of the same year and had to > explain how it could be circumvented.) > > Therefore, there is not every subset of an infinite set. Why then > should exist the subset of A that contains its pre-image if it does > not contain it, and does not contain ist, if it contains it? Why should it not exist? My own take on set theory is that everything should be allowed that does not allow proofs of statements of the form "P and not P". WM is a minimalist, but offers nothing but his own prejudices as to why he should be able to impose his views on everyone. It is not as if there were anything like Russell's paradox that results from, say, FOL+ZFC. If there ever were, that might justify WM's paranoia re infiniteness, but it certainly hasn't happened yet. |