A new point of view on Cantor's diagonalization arguments

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a critique of a new perspective on Cantor's diagonalization and cardinality presented in a linked PDF. The main contention is that the alephs discussed in the article do not align with conventional mathematical definitions, leading to inconsistencies in cardinality claims. Participants argue that the proposed system fails to adhere to established mathematical conventions, rendering it incapable of serving as a substitute for cardinality. Additionally, the conversation touches on the implications of unique structural properties in infinite sets and the nature of mappings between them. Ultimately, the debate highlights fundamental disagreements about the interpretation of infinity and cardinality in mathematics.
  • #61
If

The s_{i,j} entry (where the first index is the row and the second index is the column) is a 1 if and only if \lfloor i / 2^j \rfloor is an even number.

is accurate, then it doesn't contain the all zeroes sequence. (Which, incidentally, is the sequence produced by the basic diagonal argument)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
phoenixthoth,

Prove that your three dots example also holds in my case.
 
  • #63
Hurkyl,
is accurate, then it doesn't contain the all zeroes sequence. (Which, incidentally, is the sequence produced by the basic diagonal argument)

One index is power_value index the other is not, so how you can find a bijection between their results?
 
  • #64
Originally posted by Organic
phoenixthoth,

Prove that your three dots example also holds in my case.

i don't need to. I've proven that three dot arguments don't always work. therefore, i don't trust *your* three dots argument. why should i?

i've proven that your tools are flawed. end of story.
 
  • #65
phoenixthoth ,

And I don't trust the results of your bijection map between Z* members used as arithmetic index and Z* members used as geometric (power_values) index.
 
  • #66
One index is power_value index the other is not, so how you can find a bijection between their results?

In my version of the construction, both the rows and the columns were labelled by natural numbers.


There is, of course, a bijection between the set of natural numbers and the set of powers of 2. Or more trivially, a surjection from the natural numbers onto the set of powers of 2. (Or the set of powers of numbers)
 
  • #67
Originally posted by Organic
phoenixthoth ,

And I don't trust the results of your bijection map between Z* members used as arithmetic index and Z* members used as geometric (power_values) index.

thank you for being candid.

we're near the end of how all debates that end in draws end: we'll have to agree to disagree. i respect your postion, otherwise i wouldn't be bothering, but i disagree. you reject my proof and i reject yours. we've both shot our cannons and we both dodged each other's shots by basically saying "i reject your argument". that's it. the is getting into a debate on what constitutes proof (or in your case, what doesn't) and i don't feel like debating that.

but let me get one last shot in before i go:
i have proved that there is a set such that it can be mapped onto its powerset!

but the set of natural numbers ain't that set! the universal set is the only example i know of.
 
  • #68
Hurkyl,

Some analogy:

Let as say that you want to compare between red photons and blue photons do you think that you can ignore their energy and look only for their quantity?
 
Last edited:
  • #69
here, i'll even prove to you that I'm right.

here's my proof:


.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............
.............

if:
1. you accept dots as proof and
2. you don't want to admit that dots don't prove squat
then
3. you will contradict yourself.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
How about another analogy:

Let's say I want to count how many photons you have. What use is knowing their energy?
 
  • #71
phoenixthoth,

You know what, please write in your way how my list is constructed,
without using ... .

Can you do this for me?

Thank you.

Organic
 
  • #72
Hurkyl,
Let's say I want to count how many photons you have. What use is knowing their energy?
Because we are talking about the magnitude of this quantity.
 
  • #73
Originally posted by Organic
phoenixthoth,

You know what, please write in your way how my list is constructed,
without using ... .

Can you do this for me?

Thank you.

Organic

i will seriously consider trying but this is really your job as a math researcher.

show me what you get to a rigorous statement and i'll look it over for you. we are here to try to help you, you know.
 
  • #74
Hurkyl,

You comparing between notations , I comparing between the results behind these notations.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
phoenixthoth ,

How we can represent this idea in standard notations?
Code: 
 {...,3,2,1,0}=Z*
     2 2 2 2
     ^ ^ ^ ^
     | | | |
     v v v v
{...,1,1,1,1}<--> 1
 ...,1,1,1,0 <--> 2
 ...,1,1,0,1 <--> 3 
 ...,1,1,0,0 <--> 4 
 ...,1,0,1,1 <--> 5 
 ...,1,0,1,0 <--> 6 
 ...,1,0,0,1 <--> 7 
 ...,1,0,0,0 <--> 8 
 ...,0,1,1,1 <--> 9 
 ...,0,1,1,0 <--> 10
 ...,0,1,0,1 <--> 11
 ...,0,1,0,0 <--> 12
 ...,0,0,1,1 <--> 13
 ...,0,0,1,0 <--> 14
 ...,0,0,0,1 <--> 15
 ...,0,0,0,0 <--> 16
 
  • #76
i've done this already in my paper. please read it. I've shown exactly where cantor's argument would fail if the rules are expanded. and yes, expanded, and not contracted. *if the rules stay the same, there is nothing wrong with cantor's argument.* so what you're asking me to do is impossible.
 
  • #77
Dear phoenixthoth,

You asked me what are ",..." trough my point of view.

My answer is: No collection of infinitely many elements is a complete collection, for example:

Code: 
 {...,3,2,1,0}=Z*
     2 2 2 2
     ^ ^ ^ ^
     | | | |
     v v v v
          /1 <--> 1
         1 
        / \0 <--> 2
       1   
       /\ /1 <--> 3 
      /  0
     /    \0 <--> 4 
 ... [b]1[/b]    
     \    /1 <--> 5 
      \  [b]1[/b] 
       \/ \[b]0[/b] <--> 6
       [b]0[/b]  
        \ /1 <--> 7
         0
          \0 <--> 8
          
          /1 <--> 9 
         1
        / \0 <--> 10
       [b]1[/b]  
       /\ /[b]1[/b] <--> 11
      /  [b]0[/b] 
     /    \0 <--> 12
 ... [b]0[/b]    
     \    /1 <--> 13
      \  1
       \/ \0 <--> 14
       0  
        \ /1 <--> 15
         0
          \0 <--> 16
 ...
To this tree there cannot be a one common father, because in this case
the tree has a finite size.

By using ... notations we say that we cannot reach the state of the one common father.

Shortly speaking, any collection of infinitely many elements is an open collection of "never ending" story.

My aleph0 is an open collection that its magnitude is unknown.

The open collection can appear in infinitely many magnitudes of different open collections, for example:

When we write a=aleph0+1 > b=aleph0 we mean that a is always bigger then b by one more element, end this ratio between a and b does not change unless we choose to change it.

Shortly speaking there is a relative ratio between open collocations that determinate by us, where aleph0 stands for an open collection.

Through this point of view any arithmetic operation keeps its unique influence on the results for example:

aleph0*2 < 2^aleph0 < 3^aleph0 > aleph0^3 > (aleph0^3)/2 ...

By this attitude our information is richer then the transfinite point of view of aleph0, and it can be used in more interesting ways then the way it is used by the transfinite approach.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
you're still not writing in the language of math. until you do, mathematicians will ignore you.

having said that, i fully agree with you. it's quite cool, isn't it? but heed the advice in the opening lines of this post.

i believe that i already have formalized what you mean in my tuzfc. so anyone who's half-way interested in what you are writing, including you, should seek to understand my arguments there.
 
  • #79
phoenixthoth


Your wrote:
three dots are not a complete list of R={0,1,...}. as i said earlier, each dot has too much information in it for that to be more than an *infinitesimal* partial list.

three dots don't work in proofs. (they only help you see. so while we may see what you see, or not, that is *not* a proof.)

proof:
let x equal 1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...
1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...=
(1+(-1))+(1+(-1))+...=
0+0+...=0.
therefore, x=0.

also, x=
1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...=
1+((-1)+1)+((-1)+1)+...=
1+0+0+...=1.
therefore, x=1.

therefore, 0=1.

therfore, if we allow three dots to be a proof then we will have to sacrifice the law of identity. do you see this? do you believe 0=1?
The way you use () in (1+(-1))+(1+(-1))+... case, is different from the way you use () in 1+((-1)+1)+((-1)+1)+... case.

Therefore you get different results, and I don't see any connection between these results and ...
 
  • #80
i was wondering if you were going to spot that. you are truly an exceptional student of mathematics.

try this on for size:

x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+... can be truncated into EITHER this:
x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...
OR but NOT XOR
this:
x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+...

ok?

so assume x=x and get a contradiction. copy my original proof from this point forward and you get 0=1.
 
  • #81
Dear phoenixthoth,
x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+(-1)+... can be truncated into EITHER this:
x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+...
OR but NOT XOR
this:
x=1+(-1)+1+(-1)+1+...
What do you mean by truncated?

Nothing is truncated without SASs interference and this is exactly the meaning of ..., which is: x result can be 0 XOR 1.

Shortly speaking, we have to choose the value of x, which means: x value determinate by SASs.

There is no x result out there without SASs determination, when we deal with infinity.

( By the way, please read this paper: http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CQ.pdf )
 
Last edited:
  • #82
you cannot use conjecture as the basis of a proof. not yet.
 
  • #83
No phoenixthoth,

This invariant information structure

Code: 
                             ^
            0 XOR 1 = child  |
           /                 |
          /                  |
father = ?               redundancy    
          \                  |
           \                 |
            0 XOR 1 = child  |
                             v   
        <--uncertainty-->
is not a conjecture but a "rigorous" proof which some of its legal properties are uncertainty and redundancy.

If you don't clearly show this in your theory then you miss the whole point.

Also please read this paper:
http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/CuRe.pdf

Thank you,

Organic
 
Last edited:
  • #84
in no way, shape, or form, is that a rigorous proof.

it is, however, a "RIGOROUS" proof, PErHAps. :P
 
  • #85
Dear phoenixthoth

If you still keep in your theory the stuffed form of infinity and the stuffed proofs of Euclidian mathematics which are based on objective platonic realm, then we have nothing to talk about Math, because from my point of view Math is meaningless without us as its SASs.

For example please read this:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/Identity.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • #86
I can't believe I never picked up on this before:


Code: 
          /1
         1 
        / \0
       1   
       /\ /1
      /  0
     /    \0
 ... 1    
     \    /1
      \  1
       \/ \0
       0  
        \ /1
         0
          \0

          /1
         1 
        / \0
       1   
       /\ /1
      /  0
     /    \0
 ... 0    
     \    /1
      \  1
       \/ \0
       0  
        \ /1
         0
          \0

You assert that this is a tree with depth aleph0 and 2^aleph0 leaves, right?

What if we remove all of the leaves? We should be left with a tree with depth aleph0-1 and 2^(aleph0-1) leaves, by your reckoning, right?

Removing the leaves gives

Code: 
         1 
        / 
       1   
       /\ 
      /  0
     /    
 ... 1    
     \    
      \  1
       \/ 
       0  
        \ 
         0
          
         1 
        / 
       1   
       /\ 
      /  0
     /    
 ... 0    
     \    
      \  1
       \/ 
       0  
        \ 
         0
...


But guess what? This is the exact same tree we started with! (If you don't see it, fill in the next level)

So we must have aleph0-1 = aleph0!
 
  • #87
organic, i think "yoda" just had an ah-ha moment! :P

guess he was right about it not seeming to have any magic properties.

ready for a little breaking out of the box?

how about when someone maybe doesn't rigourously prove but rigourously tries to prove then that should be considered "circumstantial mathematical evidence" when something is correct.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
Hurkyl,

Your calculation is not right because:

1) aleph0 in my point of view stands for a general notation for any collection of infinitely many elements, and its value is flexible.

2) for example: By saying that a=(aleph0-aleph0) < b=aleph0 we mean that there are aleph0 elements in b that are not covered by a.

Also by a=(aleph0-2^aleph0) < b=aleph0 we mean that there are 2^aleph0 elements in b that are not covered by a.

There are no absolute magnitudes when we deal with collections of infinitely many elements, and no arithmetical operation (finite or infinite) can change their property of being infinitely many elements.

Shortly speaking, no arithmetical operation (finite or infinite) can change the “–“ or “+” sign in a collocation of infinitely many elements.

3) in my Binary tree the aleph0 width magnitude and the 2^aleph0 length magnitude, depends on each other, therefore their relative proportion (notated as width=aleph0 < length=2^aleph0) was not changed by your operation.


You still ignore the inner structure of infinitely many elements, because after your operation we have this list:
Code: 
 {...,3,2,1}=N
     2 2 2
     ^ ^ ^
     | | |
     v v v
[b]{[/b]...,1,1,1[b]}[/b]<--> 1
 ...,1,1,1  
 ...,1,1,0 <--> 2 
 ...,1,1,0   
 ...,1,0,1 <--> 3 
 ...,1,0,1   
 ...,1,0,0 <--> 4 
 ...,1,0,0   
 ...,0,1,1 <--> 5 
 ...,0,1,1  
 ...,0,1,0 <--> 6
 ...,0,1,0  
 ...,0,0,1 <--> 7
 ...,0,0,1  
 ...,0,0,0 <--> 8
 ...,0,0,0  
 ...

So, as you see aleph0-1 < aleph0

By the way, the result of your oparation is ((aleph0)-1) < ((2^aleph0)-aleph0)and the reason that it is jusut -aleph0 and not -2^aleph0, can be clearly shown here:
Code: 
 <---Arithmetic magnitude 

 {...,3,2,1,0} = Z*
     2 2 2 2  
     ^ ^ ^ ^   
     | | | |   
     v v v v  
{...,[b]1-1-1-1[/b]} <--> 1  Geometric magnitude(based on the 
 ...,1,1,1,[b]0[/b]  <--> 2          |          thin notations)          
 ...,1,1,[b]0[/b]/                   |
 ...,1,1/0,                   |
 ...,1,[b]0[/b], ,                   |
 ...,1/0, ,                   |
 ...,1|0, ,                   |
 ...,1|0, ,                   |
 ...,[b]0[/b]/ , ,                   |
 ...,0, , ,                   |
 ...,0, , ,                   |
 ...,0, , ,                   |
 ...,0, , ,                   |
 ...,0, , ,                   |
 ...,0, , ,                   |
 ...,0, , ,                   |
 ...                          V

After your operation we have:

( ((aleph0)-1) < ((2^aleph0)-aleph0) ) < ( aleph0 < 2^aleph0 )
 
Last edited:
  • #89
this tree is very much like the tree of knowledge. but i agree with hurkyl, it is not magical.
 
  • #90
phoenixthoth,

What do you mean by "magical"?
 

Similar threads

B One thing I don't understand about Cantor's diagonal argument
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
Does Cantor's Diagonal Argument Apply to the Rationals?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
I Understanding Cantor's Diagonalization Proof: A Brief Explanation
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Stationary points classification using definiteness of the Lagrangian
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
A new point of view on Math language
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Cantor's Diagonalization Proof of the uncountability of the real numbers
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
20K
Cantor diagonalization argument
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
I Effective Hamiltonian to Rotational Term Values
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Is the Cantor diagonal argument conclusive?
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
11K
Is the Real-Line a Fractal? Weak Points Examined
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K