Can Cantor's diagonal number solve the issue of infinite lists?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Flo Tur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Cantor's diagonal argument and its implications for the countability of real numbers, particularly in binary representation. Participants explore the nuances of diagonalization, the uniqueness of decimal expansions, and the validity of proofs across different numeral systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that Cantor's diagonal number can be constructed in a way that it appears on their list, suggesting a failure of the diagonal argument in binary representation.
  • Others highlight the non-uniqueness of decimal expansions, noting that terminating decimals can have multiple representations, which complicates the diagonal argument.
  • Several participants propose that the validity of Cantor's proof does not depend on the numeral system used, asserting that a proof in one system does not invalidate proofs in another.
  • Some suggest that if a proof fails in a specific representation, it does not imply that the opposite is true, emphasizing the need for a different proof rather than a contradiction.
  • There are discussions about constructing lists of numbers in binary and how to modify the diagonal argument to avoid generating numbers with all 0s or all 1s in their binary expansion.
  • One participant proposes an alternative diagonalization method that guarantees a new representation not found in the original list.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the effectiveness of Cantor's diagonal argument in binary representation. There is no consensus on whether the reals can be countable in binary, with some asserting they cannot and others suggesting that different proofs may be needed.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of countability and the uniqueness of representations in different bases. The discussion does not resolve whether Cantor's argument is universally applicable across numeral systems.

  • #61
One can use the decimal representation of the real numbers that everyone is familiar with since 4th grade and avoid the 999... issue simply by never allowing the infinite 9 representation in the list and never using 9 on the diagonal. That is concrete and familiar and does not require any abstraction to infinite lists. IMO, abstraction to the general list is easier to motivate after seeing a concrete example.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
JeffJo said:
Do you disagree with any of this?
Nope. You win.
 
  • #63
FactChecker said:
One can use the decimal representation of the real numbers that everyone is familiar with since 4th grade and avoid the 999... issue simply by never allowing the infinite 9 representation in the list and never using 9 on the diagonal. That is concrete and familiar and does not require any abstraction to infinite lists. IMO, abstraction to the general list is easier to motivate after seeing a concrete example.
Sounds eminently reasonable to me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
9K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
2K