Register to reply 
Cantor's Diagonalization Proof of the uncountability of the real numbers 
Share this thread: 
#55
Feb612, 08:52 PM

Mentor
P: 18,036

We all heard such quotes before. Earlier they might have said:
"Negative numbers is a disease from with future mathematics will someday be cured" or "Imaginary numbers is a disease from with future mathematics will someday be cured" or "Noneuclidean geometry is a disease from with future mathematics will someday be cured" or "Decimal notation is a disease from with future mathematics will someday be cured" These statements are all quite incorrect. Negative numbers, imaginary numbers, noneuclidean geomety and transfinite numbers are ALL very useful concepts. They will NOT go away. Transfinite numbers yield a perfectly consistent theory (in so far that the natural numbers are consistent), and they form a theory that are very applicable. They show up literally everywhere in mathematics. Cantor's ideas were initially despides and Cantor ended up in a deep depression. People like Kronecker and Poincarre were (although they were very smart) ultimately conservative and did not foresee the huge successes in axiomatic set theory. I understand you don't like it. But you have to realize that it will not go away because mathematicians like it. Transfinite numbers might be unintuitive, but they eventually are entirely logically sound. I notice a trend. Initially an innovative new idea is always laughed at, then it is furiously attecked and in the end it is accepted as common sense. (somebody else said this, but I can't remember who). Right now, transfinite numbers ARE a common sense. Mathematics will not be cured from axiomatic set theory, and if they would remove axiomatic set theory from mathematics then they would rip out its very heart. 


#56
Feb612, 09:06 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 820




#57
Feb612, 09:10 PM

P: 263

Let me ask a simple question, If I were to show you a way to count every possibly decimal representation as a unique list  and that means as many digits as can be imagined (inductively given n digits, I will list n+1 as well...) What would it do to this silly argument? I realize many people think it is impossible; but that is part of the point. I believe it can be done  is it sufficient to put a big !"?"! into the whole idea of Cantor's idea? (I am serious... and this isn't a difficult proof.) 


#58
Feb612, 09:15 PM

Mentor
P: 18,036




#59
Feb612, 09:38 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 906

Leucippus, let me offer you a variant of Cantor's proof, that show that your consideration of "slope" is irrelevant:
we proceed as before, except, for our "diagonal number" we do THIS: if the first digit of the first number is 1, we assign the diagonal number the first digit 2. otherwise, we assign the first digit of the diagonal number to be 1. the next 8 digits of the diagonal number shall be 1, regardless. if the 10th digit of the second number is 1, we assign the diagonal number the 10th digit 2. otherwise, we assign the number 1 to the 10th digit of the diagonal number. the next 89 digits of the diagonal number are assigned the digit 1. if the 100th digit of the third number is 1, we assign the digit 2 to the 100th digit of our diagonal number. otherwise, we assign 1 to the 100th digit of our diagonal number. we continue in this way. now the "slope" is "even worse" the diagonal is not even as steep as before. nevertheless, no matter which n we pick, the diagonal number differs from the first n numbers in our list, so it differs from every number on our list (it differs from the kth number in the 10^{k1}th digit). @ micromass: i disagree with the contention that if a proof can only be demonstrated graphically, it isn't valid. for what is a formal system, if not a few squiggles on paper? is that not graphical? i don't know about you, but i read most of my mathematics. more to the point: many proofs in algebraic topology or category theory amount to: diagramchasing. the diagram IS the proof, in some cases. there's no logical reason why "pictures" can't be made every bit as unambiguous and consistent as wellformed formulas. constructing a length with a compass and straightedge IS a proof of constructibility (a concept which can be expressed purely algebraically). there is many people who think that a mathematical result "isn't true" until it is proven formalizable in (first or second) order logic in a formal language that has encoded the axioms of ZermeloFrankel set theory. this is unfortunate. 


#60
Feb612, 09:41 PM

P: 440




#61
Feb612, 09:49 PM

P: 1,042

This is kind of off topic but I'm curious why graphs can not be proofs (I have not taken a course on logic)?



#62
Feb612, 09:52 PM

Mentor
P: 18,036

If you look at Bourbaki, then they show that they treat commutative diagrams very rigorously. They try to prove everything with algebraic means. To me, a proof is correct if it formilizable in some kind of logical system. You don't actually NEED to formalize it, but just giving a suggestion that it can be done is good enough. 


#63
Feb612, 10:01 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,098

Just for your information, I have never encountered somebody who uses that terms that could give an even quasirigorous account of what the term means. From observing people who use it, I quite honestly believe that it literally means "I am unwilling or unable to engage in one more layer of abstraction, and thus have failed to recognize that we're talking about the same idea." (I don't mean insult by this, except possibly in the 'unwilling' case) 


#64
Feb612, 10:02 PM

Mentor
P: 18,036

There are actually two kind of proofs: informal and formal proofs. By the very definition, a proof is formal. A proof is defined as a sequence of logical algebraic steps. Each step follows from another step by applying an inference rule. These things are the actual proofs. However, they are EXTREMELY hard to read. If all math books would consist out of formal proofs, then math books would be unreadable. That's why we allow informal proofs. An informal proof presents people the basic ideas and reasoning of a proof. An informal proof suggests that the formal proof can be carried out if one would want to do so. All text books contain informal proofs (and it's good that they do). Text books like to work with a lot of text and a lot of pictures to make it easier on the student. But one should always keep in mind that one should be able to formalize the proof. And indeed, one can formalize all the proofs. An example is given by http://us.metamath.org/index.html which contains thousands of proofs including the celebrated HahnBanach theorem. This site shows what actual formal proofs look like. And as one can see, it is completely unreadable. (the site also shows formal proofs in plane geometry, including constructibility). I am NOT advocating that everybody should be using formal proofs in journals or education. Quite the contrary. But the students should be wellaware that the formal proof can be carried it if one wants to do it. 


#65
Feb612, 10:05 PM

P: 1,042




#66
Feb612, 10:08 PM

Mentor
P: 18,036




#67
Feb612, 10:14 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,098

mm: I think the point Deveno makes (and maybe that Jorriss is wondering about) is that proof theory can be cast in settings other than string processing.
For example, arithmetic expressions and equations in category theory are often presented in graphs. In Categories, Allegories, Freyd introduces the idea of a Qsequence (and a Qtree) that consists of a path through a category and a sequence of quantifiers, which can replace the role of formulas. Applied to the category of finitelypresented categories, he uses them to prove a metatheorem that an equivalence functor preserves and reflects a property if and only if it can be expressed on a blackboard. 


#68
Feb612, 10:25 PM

P: 263

But, set that aside  what I am saying is that I believe I can show an algorithm which will demonstratably count every possible decimal number in the decimal notation system, uniquely, and once. eg: 1.01 will be counted exactly once, as will 2.01, 2.011, 2,0000001, etc. I am not trained in formal mathematical proofs with respect to Aleph not, etc, so excuse my vagueness. However, my understanding is that the Real numbers are representable by the decimal notation system; and that the "Ideal" representation of all real numbers is spanned by a mantissa and fraction portion that becomes more and more perfect as the number of digits in each is allowed to grow arbitrarily large. If I were to demonstrate an algorithm which showed that all possible decimal numbers can be counted with a distinct index; say 'i' so that any imaginable real number would exist "somewhere" in a sequence defined by an index (i) which is an integer from 0 to as large as one likes. eg: every possible decimal number could be found by a static algorithm called f(i). The only issue which would come up is the representation of 0.99999999.... vs. 1.00000.... and whether or not they are distinct numbers as i becomes arbitrarily large. If I am following the argument correctly, Cantor appears to be claiming that such a unique counting is impossible. So if I gave a simple counterexample in decimal notation  would such an algorithm be of use in this discussion? 


#69
Feb612, 10:47 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 16,098

The problem is that most real numbers don't have finite decimal representations. It sounds like you have a specific algorithm in mind; can you write down the first 10 or so numbers? After that, can you tell me at what place the number 1/9 appears? 


#70
Feb612, 11:00 PM

P: 263

There are many counting numbers which we know exist, but can't be written down inside a text terminal of this size. You would agree, no doubt, that "0.999999999....." is a representation of a real number; and by the ellipsis I am suggesting a pattern for something which is much larger than I would like to write down, although I DO KNOW HOW to write it down  eg: and that the representation improves in accuracy and may have a selectable accuracy for a given discussion or purpose. The algorithm itself can be adapted for various constraints; eg: there are many such algorithms based on a similar methodology. DO you care if I count only the positive reals, or do I need to include the negative as well? etc. 


#71
Feb612, 11:14 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 906

but...it is highly likely that there is an undiscovered flaw in your algorithm, which might not easily be detectable (especially if the algorithm is of sufficient complexity). http://www.amazon.com/LawsFormGSp.../dp/0963989901 until relatively recently, geometric proofs ("pictures" a la Euclid), were the gold standard of "formal proofs". it's likely that as we accumulate more knowledge, better formal systems using more sophisticated building blocks will emerge. (by the way, metamath is an awesome site). 


#72
Feb612, 11:41 PM

P: 263

I will tailor it to the needs of the discussion. It is probably easier to do an algorithm that counts all possible reals than one limited to [01). Let me ask a question to make sure we are agreeing on a general idea: I am going to choose a nonrepeating decimal to make sure you don't think I am oversimplifying. Take the number (2)**0.5. The representation of this real number is given to you by a counting number (2) and a function ()**0.5. I would argue that we know such a number is not finite in representation because there is no FINITE sequence of digits which repeats. eg: the first digits in a 4 mantissa and 4 fractional representation would be: 0001.4142 By induction, the next symmetrical word size up would be: 00001.41428 ... etc. It is not a rational number that it should be represented by any ratio of counting numbers. The proof of the infinite nature of the decimal representation is *inductive* in that no matter how many digits I show you, you can claim there is a representation with n+1 digits. It is not necessary to write all the digits down to show that it is infinite, but simply to show that it grows without bound. But, none the less, the only way to express this number is a mapping through a function (sqrt) of a counting number. The sequence of digits, however, 1.41428.... is unique. I am going to assume that a sequence that preserves previously made digits and adds new ones in a predictable (inductive) pattern is sufficient to show the signature of a unique real number; and that likewise, a counting number may be converged to by a signature (in the reverse direction). Such a pattern, that one may work out to any desired number of digits (without END and therfore infinite) is sufficient to show the existence in the decimal system of such a number. Eg: The sequence 1.41428.... no matter what algorithm produces it, so long as it matches the sequence of digits with not a single exception to the algorithm of sqrt(2) ... must be considered to have produced the same rational number. I let you ponder that for a bit, because I want to give you the best answer I can. (This is starting to get fun.... I wish people would help me with my simple statistics and propagation of error problems IF I complete this successfully ..... deal? ) And now the question, is the signature of the rational number inductively matched to all possible digits sufficient to indicate that it has been counted? (I am not saying we actually match all infinite digits, but that we show they *WILL* match.) 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Use Cantor's Diagonalization on the set of Natural Numbers?  Calculus & Beyond Homework  8  
Cantor diagonalization argument  Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics  2  
Cantor's diagonalization  Calculus & Beyond Homework  5  
A new point of view on Cantor's diagonalization arguments  General Physics  177  
A question on Cantor's second diagonalization argument  General Math  36 