Why can no one in sci.math understand my simple point?
in [Math]
|
Prev: power of a matrix limit A^n
Next: best way of testing Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation Chapt 14 #163; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 1 Jul 2010 00:27 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> writes: > Excepting that the standard presentation of Cantor's proof - and > indeed your first attempt at reformulating it - does assume the list > is known in advance sufficiently well that we can explicitly identify > the nth digit of the nth item. This is an example of the special mathematical use of "we can". Similar expressions abound -- "we now construct, using the axiom of choice...", "next we take the principal ultrafilter and..." and so on. When we say in mathematics that we can explicitly define or identify an object B given an object A we simply mean that we can give an explicit mathematical description of B in terms of A, with A as a parameter. There's no suggestion that we in fact could be given the object A, e.g. an infinite list, in any literal sense, or that would in any literal sense be able to produce B or an explicit description or definition of B. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Peter Webb on 1 Jul 2010 01:03 "Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote in message news:87wrtfhln8.fsf(a)dialatheia.truth.invalid... > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> writes: > >> Excepting that the standard presentation of Cantor's proof - and >> indeed your first attempt at reformulating it - does assume the list >> is known in advance sufficiently well that we can explicitly identify >> the nth digit of the nth item. > > This is an example of the special mathematical use of "we can". Similar > expressions abound -- "we now construct, using the axiom of choice...", > "next we take the principal ultrafilter and..." and so on. When we say > in mathematics that we can explicitly define or identify an object B > given an object A we simply mean that we can give an explicit > mathematical description of B in terms of A, Except that the naive treatment of Cantor's diagonal proof - and indeed the reformulation I am criticising - the proof explicitly uses the nth digit of the nth item. > with A as a > parameter. There's no suggestion that we in fact could be given the > object A, e.g. an infinite list, in any literal sense, or that would in > any literal sense be able to produce B or an explicit description or > definition of B. > Well, it uses B's decimal expansion. Sounds pretty explicit to me. > -- > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) > > "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 1 Jul 2010 01:15 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> writes: > Except that the naive treatment of Cantor's diagonal proof - and > indeed the reformulation I am criticising - the proof explicitly uses > the nth digit of the nth item. There's nothing to criticize in the treatment in this respect. The statement you seem to object is Given a list A of reals we can explicitly define a real B not listed in A. where B is defined with reference to the decimal expansion of the reals in A. The definition of B is explicit in the sense that we can write down a formula for B in which A occurs as a parameter. But there is no suggestion that we could in general be given A in any literal sense, e.g. by means of a specific algorithm or explicit (parameter-free) definition, and consequently no suggestion the definition of B is in any literal sense explicit, or yields an algorithm. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Ross A. Finlayson on 12 Jul 2010 05:07
On Jun 20, 1:57 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 17, 10:30 pm, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > > > > > On 2010-06-18, Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlay...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The rationals are well known to be countable, and things aren't both > > > countable and uncountable, so to have a reason to think that > > > arguments about the real numbers that are used to establish that > > > they are uncountable apply also to the rationals, the integer > > > fractions, has for an example in Cantor's first argument, about the > > > nested intervals, that the rationals are dense in the reals, so even > > > though they aren't gapless or complete, they are no- where > > > non-dense, they are everywhere dense on the real number line. > > > As your sentence is less than coherent, I will merely point out that > > it is generally poor form to use 9 commas in a single sentence except > > when listing items. I will grant that parody often benefits from > > abuses of ordinary sentence structure, such as, for example, and not > > in any way showing that these are the only possible forms, sentences, > > like this one, which are convoluted to exhibit, by way of meandering, > > that they imply that mental processes, of the original writer, that > > is, which may be, perhaps, less than clear, and so in some way, to > > some readers, humourous. > > > - Tim > > Some I go back and add later. > > Too bad no one can read it but me. > > No seriously still it's clear in lots of ways, I can rewrite those > paragraphs as much longer. > > Sorry that was a bad joke. Collected, I'm very happy with the > output. Each one, in its own way, has some content. > > You don't agree with the rationals are dense on the line? > > The rationals are well known to be countable, and things aren't both > countable and uncountable, > so to have a reason to think that arguments about the real numbers > that are used to establish that they are uncountable apply also to the > rationals, the integer fractions, > has for an example in Cantor's first argument, about the nested > intervals, > that the rationals are dense in the reals, > so even though they aren't gapless or complete, > they are no- where non-dense, they are everywhere dense on the real > number line. > > The rationals are well known to be countable, > and things aren't both countable and uncountable, > so to have a reason to think that arguments about the real numbers > that are used to establish that they are uncountable > apply also to the rationals, > the integer fractions, > has for an example in Cantor's first argument, > about the nested intervals, > that the rationals are dense in the reals, > so even though they aren't gapless or complete, > they are no- where non-dense, they are everywhere dense on the real > number line. > > (The rationals > are well known to be countable, > and things aren't both countable and uncountable, so ) > to have a reason to think that arguments about the real numbers > that are used to establish that they are uncountable > apply also to the rationals, > the integer fractions, > has for an example in Cantor's first argument, > about the nested intervals, > that the rationals are dense in the reals, > so even though they aren't gapless or complete, > they are no- where non-dense, they are > everywhere dense > on the real number line. > (...) > > You left out the part before and after. > > Arguments about the uncountability of the real numbers include those > derived from the numeric property of their density. For example one > of them is called "Cantor's first argument for the uncountability of > the reals." > > The constructive (computable) sets are mappable to the countable > ordinals, where, the countable ordinals is the same thing as the > enumerative ordinals, because, they're each countable and that's all > of them. The constructive universe is complete, each in it countable, > but then the results of results are results so they are infinite and > their own powersets. (Sound familiar?) The existence of the > constructive universe is a result. > > Ha what's funny is you can still read them. > > Basically from having an idea to write a sentence, as it's written > then the parts of it are added automatically for, as you describe, > contemplative pause, as well as any emplacement of comment to provide > context generally. This is in the case where the writing is for a > particular medium, when there's a lot of writing back in forth (in > complete sentences, thank you) then to edit for readability is > deferred for real intent. But, there's not really a lot of writing > going on that way, rather, I much prefer the writing with the theme > and the content (on the mathematics). So, I read. > > Warm regards, > > Ross Finlayson Warm regards, why warm regards? We parse your posts, here I'm replying to myself. (It's OK.) No I'm just kidding, but this is great, this is a great medium of expression. (Excuse me, while I fix the previous sentence befi meidum -> medium of expression.) Well, thank you very much. Warm regards, Ross Finlayson |