# Aleph0 - 1 conjecture

1. Dec 2, 2003

### Organic

An edited post:

"By using base^power representation method we can represent a list of rational numbers (repetitions over scales, for example: 0.123123123...) where the missing rational number is based on the diagonal rational number used as an input for Cantor's function (the function that defines the rational number, which is not in the list), where the result (the rational number, which is not in the list) depends on some arbitrary order of the list and some rule, which is used by Cantor's function.

For example:

0 . 1 7 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 3 1 7 ...
1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
0 . 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 ...
0 . 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ...
0 . 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
2 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
0 . 3 5 4 9 5 5 1 3 5 4 9 5 ...
3 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
0 . 6 4 1 6 4 1 6 4 1 6 4 1 ...
0 . 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 ...
0 . 6 1 3 6 1 3 6 1 3 6 1 3 ...
0 . 2 7 1 0 2 7 1 0 2 7 1 0 ...
...

In this case Cantor's function result is 0.0101010101010101.... which is not in the list.

The rule is:

a) Every 0 in the original diagonal number is turned to 1 in Cantor's new number.

b) Every non-zero in the original diagonal number is turned to 0 in Cantor's new number.

We can add 0.0101010101010101.... to the list, and then rearrenge the list in such a way that give us another rational number as cantor's function result, which means that our list is still not complete.

my conjecture is:

When we have the Aleph0 complete list of rational numbers, represented by base^power representation method, then and only then we can find only some irrational diagonal number (no repetitions over scales, for example: 0.123005497762...) as an input for Cantor's function."

I call this conjecture "Aleph0-1 conjecture" because i clime that if even 1 rational number is not in the list, we shall find it as the result of Cantor's function, but when the list is the complete list of all rational numbers (an aleph0 list), we can find only some irrational number as Contor function result.

Sincerely yours,

Organic

Last edited: Dec 4, 2003
2. Dec 2, 2003

### HallsofIvy

As long as you refuse to define your terms:

"repetition over scales"
"aleph0-1"
"represented by base value expansion"
"input for Cantor's function"

3. Dec 2, 2003

### Organic

HallsofIvy

Two things i know:

1) I am a bad formalist, and need some help to take my idea and write it in a rigorous way.

2) Your attitude leads to nothing, if you don't want to help.

4. Dec 2, 2003

### HallsofIvy

It's not a matter of "writing it in a rigorous way".

No one CAN help when you use non-standard terms and don't define them because they can't understand what you are saying!

5. Dec 2, 2003

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
To use an analogy, it's like you're asking us how to win the world cup, but you refuse to learn how to kick a soccer ball.

Based on the past three months, it seems the only way you're going to make progress is if you learn the basics, and you don't seem to grasp the importance of learning the basics... like it or not, HallsofIvy's response is very likely just what you need.

6. Dec 3, 2003

### Organic

Last edited: Dec 3, 2003
7. Dec 3, 2003

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
There's a reason I stopped responding to your posts when you started lashing out at people who are telling you that you need to learn the basics; it made me realize that you have no interest in learning them.

For instance, you're still using some of the same nonstandard terminology "repetition over scales" you've been using since day one, and you still haven't made much of an effort to define it. Also you're still trying to prove things about aleph0 - 1.

Until you're interested in learning the basics, any help I try to give you with your ideas and conjectures will be a waste of my time and yours.

8. Dec 4, 2003

9. Dec 4, 2003

### Integral

Staff Emeritus
I have said it before, and I will say it again. You cannot think outside of the box if you have no idea where the box is. In this case the box is defined by the basics. You lack of knowledge of the basics invalidates any effort you make to argue against them. First learn the basics then, from a position of understanding, you can attempt to rewrite the rules.

Of course, once you learn the basics you will not feel a need to redo that which works.

10. Dec 4, 2003

### Organic

11. Dec 4, 2003

### HallsofIvy

To quote a famous mathematician it "not even wrong"!
It simply makes no sense. You don't seem to recognize the difference between writing mathematics and writing lots of big words.

By the way, contrary to
When you are challenging a statement you must challenge it on its own terms or you have done nothing.

12. Dec 4, 2003

### Organic

And when my idea change the terms, then what shall i do?

Last edited: Dec 4, 2003
13. Dec 4, 2003

### Staff: Mentor

"Not even wrong. Thats pretty good.
DEFINE THEM!! (echo, echo, echo, echo, echo).

Do you not understand what we are saying when we tell you you need to define the terms you use if you aren't going to use the standard definition?

14. Dec 4, 2003

### Organic

OK, I'll write my idea in more detailed way.

An edited post:

"By using base^power representation method we can represent a list of rational numbers (repetitions over scales, for example: 0.123123123...) where the missing rational number is based on the diagonal rational number used as an input for Cantor's function (the function that defines the rational number, which is not in the list), where the result (the rational number, which is not in the list) depends on some arbitrary order of the list and some rule, which is used by Cantor's function.

For example:

0 . 1 7 1 1 3 1 7 1 1 3 1 7 ...
1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
0 . 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 ...
0 . 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ...
0 . 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
2 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
0 . 3 5 4 9 5 5 1 3 5 4 9 5 ...
3 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
0 . 6 4 1 6 4 1 6 4 1 6 4 1 ...
0 . 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 ...
0 . 6 1 3 6 1 3 6 1 3 6 1 3 ...
0 . 2 7 1 0 2 7 1 0 2 7 1 0 ...
...

In this case Cantor's function result is 0.0101010101010101.... which is not in the list.

The rule is:

a) Every 0 in the original diagonal number is turned to 1 in Cantor's new number.

b) Every non-zero in the original diagonal number is turned to 0 in Cantor's new number.

We can add 0.0101010101010101.... to the list, and then rearrenge the list in such a way that give us another rational number as cantor's function result, which means that our list is still not complete.

my conjecture is:

When we have the Aleph0 complete list of rational numbers, represented by base^power representation method, then and only then we can find only some irrational diagonal number (no repetitions over scales, for example: 0.123005497762...) as an input for Cantor's function."

I call this conjecture "Aleph0-1 conjecture" because i clime that if even 1 rational number is not in the list, we shall find it as the result of Cantor's function, but when the list is the complete list of all rational numbers (an aleph0 list), we can find only some irrational number as Contor function result.

Sincerely yours,

Organic

Last edited: Dec 4, 2003
15. Dec 4, 2003

### NateTG

Consider the following set of rational numbers:

0.2
0.23
0.232
0.2322
0.23223
0.232232
0.2322322
0.23223222
0.232232223
.
.
.
Clearly this leads to a diagonal of
0.23223222322223222223....

which is definitely irrational.

The list of numbers is obviously incomplete. It doesn't , for example, contain 0.5.

16. Dec 4, 2003

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
By "base^power representation" do you mean decimal representation?

E.G.

$0.2$ is the answer to the questions: "What is the decimal representation of one-fifth?", "What is one-fifth written as a decimal?", and "What is the decimal expansion of one-fifth?"

This is called a repeating decimal.

What "missing rational number"?

Your post becomes difficult to penetrate beyond this point... though I think I understand your conjecture. Tell me, have you spent any effort looking for a counterexample?

17. Dec 4, 2003

### Organic

Hi Hurkyl,

By writing base^power representation i mean that 0.2 = 5^-1 where the used digits are limitad by some base number, for example:
'0','1' (number 2)
'0','1','2' (number 3)
...

The missing rational number is some rational number (an output of Cantor's function) which is not in the list.

By writing 'Counterexample' do you mean that if i tried to contradict my conjecture?

Yes i tried, and i need your help to find it.

Last edited: Dec 4, 2003
18. Dec 4, 2003

### Organic

Hi NateTG,

You did not understand my argument.