• TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    I got it from the net...AgentTangarine

    So? Not everything on the Internet is the sharpest formulation.
  • AgentTangarine
    166
    So? Not everything on the Internet is the sharpest formulationTonesInDeepFreeze

    There you go.
  • AgentTangarine
    166


    I can map N onto R infinite times infinite times.

    Infinite times onto

    [0.1-0.99999...]
    [0.01-0.09999...]
    [0.001-0.009999...]
    .
    .
    .
    So infinite times onto [0-1]. The map even defines [0-1].

    Times infinity for all length 1 intervals.

    So in total there is an inf^3 involved. Hence aleph1.4. Merry Christmas!

    No. You are right. Onto only for N^3! But into inf^3 times. I get sleepy.

    Which means aleph1.4 is the one for R, and aleph2.6 is the one for RxR.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k


    There you go what? I am the first to say that one has to use great caution trying to pick up math on the Internet. There are some excellent Internet sources, but usually the best approach is in books. I recommended the Internet to you only because I know you wouldn't bother to read a proper book on this subject.
  • AgentTangarine
    166
    f is onto Y if and only if (f is a function & range(f)= Y)TonesInDeepFreeze

    Indeed. So N can't be mapped 1-1 onto. You can at most map N to infinite points, infinite times. Say 1 into 2, 2 into 4, 3 into 6, etc. But into still. Then you still need to map into all inbetween intervals. On each interval an infinity of infinities of naturals is needed. So you need inf^3 times to map N into R. Pffffff.... I'm done! Thanks for the resistence! :smile:
  • AgentTangarine
    166
    There you go what? I am the first to say that one has to use great caution trying to pick up math on the Internet. There are some excellent Internet sources, but usually the best approach is in books. I recommended the Internet to you only because I know you wouldn't bother to read a proper book on this subject.TonesInDeepFreeze

    There are a lot of good books indeed. Thanks for the references. I prefer the math use in physics though. And the alephity of the continuum has implications for particles moving in it. That's why I think the aleph of the volume is different from the line and plane. I have booked a hotel for us... Just kidding! Gnight!
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k


    You still demonstrate that you don't understand these basic concepts.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    There are a lot of good books indeed.AgentTangarine

    And you desperately need one if you are not to remain mired in your terrible confusions.
  • AgentTangarine
    166
    And you desperately need one if you are not to remain mired in your terrible confusions.TonesInDeepFreeze

    Well... I don't take it too seriously... You are probably right. Still, I can't see how R and RxR can have the same cardinality. There are just inf^3 times as many points in RxR as there are in R.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    Thanks for the resistence! :smile:AgentTangarine

    I resist misinformation.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    I don't take it too seriouslyAgentTangarine

    The problem is not so much that you don't take it seriously, but that you take it seriously enough to stubbornly persist in claims that are false or just ersatz gibberish from your own mind uninformed about anything other than itself.

    I can't see how R and RxR can have the same cardinality.AgentTangarine

    You could ask for more details about the proof mentioned by jgill and about the proof in the Quora thread.

    For a proof in greater generality for any infinite S, as I said, it requires learning set theory.
  • AgentTangarine
    166
    L
    You could ask for more details about the proof mentioned by jgill and about the proof in the Quora thread.TonesInDeepFreeze

    The point is that the proof in quora is incorrect. It's making use of decimal expansions also but overlooks the majority of them.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    It's making use of decimal expansions also but overlooks the majority of them.AgentTangarine

    Name one.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I resist misinformation.TonesInDeepFreeze

    You should edit Wikipedia. We need Wikipedia and Wikipedia needs you i.e. we need you!

    No offense intended AgentTangarine. I don't think your're guilty of misinformation. TonesInDeepFreeze is conflating facts with opinions.
  • AgentTangarine
    166
    Name one.TonesInDeepFreeze

    Well, the point made is that a pair of numbers (x,y) say (0.678567..., 0,98678...) is contained in a single number 0.65456456.... The infinite number behind the 0 should contain both the infinites behind the 0 of x and y. This is not so.
  • jgill
    3.8k
    Take the square {(x,y):0<x<1,0<y<1} and map it one-to-one to the line {r:0<r<1) by using the procedure implied by the simple example (.329576914..., .925318623...) <-> .39229537168961243...

    You can figure it out if you stay off the Xmas grog long enough. Although you are a smart physicist and may be pulling our legs. You and Agent Smith can work this out. It cropped up in the course I used to teach in Intro to Real Analysis.

    Hence, there are exactly the same "number" of points in the (section of) the plane and on the unit interval. Same cardinality.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    conflating facts with opinionsAgent Smith

    No way. One can offer alternative systems; I enjoy reading about them if they are rigorous. And one can even stipulate one's own terminology, and if it is rigorous, then we can accept it for purpose of discussion. But whether a proof is correct from given axioms is not a matter of opinion. Indeed, in principle, it is machine checkable. And the matter of what, in fact, mathematicians mean by the terminology is empirical fact, not opinion.

    Saying in a case like this "Oh, it's all opinion anyway" is intellectual dereliction.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    .
    a number (x,y)AgentTangarine

    That is not a real number, you understand, right?
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    No way. One can offer alternative system; I enjoy reading about them. And one can even stipulate one's own terminology, and if it is rigorous, then we can accept it for purpose of discussion. But whether a proof is correct from given axioms is not a matter of opinion. Indeed, in principle, it is machine checkable. And the matter of what, in fact, mathematicians mean by the terminology is empirical fact, not opinion.TonesInDeepFreeze

    I'm currently reading a book on mathematical philosophy. I'm no good at math although I'm fascinated by the subject. I noticed that math, its various branches, start life more as vague intuitions rather than crystal-clear concepts/ideas. Rigor comes much, much later if I'm not mistaken.

    Too, the definitions in math give me the impression that true understanding is being sacrificed for logical formalism.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    Rigor comes much, much later if I'm not mistaken.Agent Smith

    To know, we would have to have access to the mental states of mathematicians. We would have to know how long was the time between their first pre-formal musings and then putting them down in concrete formulations. There is no reason to believe that for many mathematicians that time might be very brief.

    Anyway, if cranks said, "Here are my pre-formal musings, maybe something could come of them", then that would be one thing, but instead cranks insist that their view and only their view is correct; that ordinary mathematics (and even the alternative systems that the crank is ignorant of) are wrong. It is the crank, not the mathematician, who is dogmatic and exclusionary.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    the definitions in math give me the impression that true understanding is being sacrificed for logical rigor.Agent Smith

    I have never had any such impression. Very much to the contrary.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    start life more as vague intuitionsAgent Smith

    Example?
  • AgentTangarine
    166
    Take the square {(x,y):0<x<1,0<y<1} and map it one-to-one to the line {r:0<r<1) by using the procedure implied by the simple example (.329576914..., .925318623...) <-> .39229537168961243...jgill

    Sounds good mr. Gill. Almost convincing. But you construct a new number from the both. Giving them both different decimal places. The diagonal proof of Cantor says you leave numbers out. Infinitely many. (same for (.0329576914..., .0925318623...).


    That is not a real number, you understand, right?
    11m
    TonesInDeepFreeze

    It's a pair of numbers. You must quote the whole line I wrote.
  • jgill
    3.8k
    Sounds good mr. Gill. Almost convincing. But you construct a new number from the both. Giving them both different decimal places. The diagonal proof of Cantor says you leave numbers out. Infinitely many.AgentTangarine

    Give me an example of a number you think is left out. I bet it's not. Avoid the .999... =1.0 thing. Have you figured out what the algorithm is?

    Too, the definitions in math give me the impression that true understanding is being sacrificed for logical formalism.Agent Smith

    The definition you are seeing is the formal aspect. It's a kind of final touch to an idea that began as an interesting notion.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k


    Yes, a pair of numbers. Not a number as you wrote.

    You keep resorting to saying that I must consider the rest of what you posted. But each time it turns out that the rest of what you posted doesn't actually qualify into correctness the initially incorrect statements you make.

    But funny, <x y> actually is a number. It's a complex number.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    a number (x,y) say (0.678567, 0,98678) is contained in a single number 0.65456456.AgentTangarine

    Whatever you mean by an ordered pair being "contained" in a number, what we have is each number mapped to an ordered pair. The claim of the prover is that the whole mapping is 1-1 and onto RxR. All it takes then is to see that no ordered pair is mapped to by two different numbers, and that each ordered pair is mapped to by a number.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    The diagonal proof of Cantor says you leave numbers out.AgentTangarine

    The diagonal proof shows that any map from N to R is not onto R. That is, there are real numbers not mapped to.
  • AgentTangarine
    166


    I wrote:

    Well, the point made is that a pair of numbers (x,y)...

    You keep resorting to saying that I must consider the rest of what you posted.TonesInDeepFreeze

    Where did I do that?

    It is the crank, not the mathematician who is dogmatic and exclusionary.TonesInDeepFreeze

    It's you who is the crank. You are exclusionary and dogmatic. And you have no sense of humor. Sense of rigor, maybe. Jgill knew to convince me (well, almost...) in one comment. But he's a real mathematician.

    Cantor diagonal set
    The diagonal proof shows that any map from N to R is not onto R. That is, there are real numbers not mapped to.
    28m
    TonesInDeepFreeze

    That's not what the proof is about. It just shows that [0-1]is uncountable. Every time you think you counted a new number shows up. After infinity.
  • TonesInDeepFreeze
    3.7k
    Where did I do that?AgentTangarine

    Just now, and in the other thread that was deleted yesterday.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.