Maybe all reals can be listed?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether all real numbers can be listed, exploring concepts related to Cantor's diagonalization argument and various proposed methods for listing real numbers. Participants engage in a mix of theoretical reasoning and personal insights, with a focus on the implications of diagonalization and alternative listing techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant reflects on their initial attempt to create a binary tree to list real numbers, realizing that the numbers change positions and thus cannot be fully listed.
  • Another participant emphasizes that a complete list of reals must be definitive and cannot simply be revised, arguing that diagonalization proves that such a complete list is impossible.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that the assumption of having all numbers listed is flawed, and that a second list is unnecessary if the set is countable.
  • One participant proposes a "mirroring technique" for sequencing rational numbers, suggesting that this method could potentially list all reals, though they express uncertainty about its validity.
  • Another participant suggests creating multiple lists for different intervals of real numbers, arguing that each interval could contain all reals within it, yet still leave room for additional numbers outside those intervals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the possibility of listing all real numbers. There is no consensus on whether diagonalization definitively proves that reals cannot be listed, nor on the validity of alternative listing methods proposed.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference Cantor's diagonal argument and its implications, but there are varying interpretations of its conclusions. The discussion includes assumptions about the completeness of lists and the nature of real numbers that remain unresolved.

  • #31
There is no mathematical term "closed list".
There are sets closed in some topology, but that is unrelated to the topic here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
??

There are an infinite number of diagonals in a list. For every coordinate, the are 4 diagonals, in an infinite list, there are an infinite number of coordinates.

Ok, name it what you want then *shrug* It's obviously pertinent that there are "closed lists" in real number list representation, particularly when the topic talks about diagonalization, which is what we're discussing. You blankly stated that Cantor proved once and for all, that diagonalization proved uncountability. That's not true, there are "closed lists". I just proved one right in front of you, why do I need a source for it to be proven to you?

Additionally, "closed lists" have been found for lists of irrationals, though the lists were shown to not be complete.

The open question is whether the incompleteness is inherent or whether it's a sequence problem?

Like I explained before, if you list all the counting numbers first, you can't list all the rationals "next", because the counting numbers go forever. BUT! You can interpolate them (called scattering) and if you scatter them, you can make a whole list of the rationals… to do this, the sequence has to be very precise. When adding irrationals, obviously, the only way to include them is to interpolate them with the rationals, because, again, the new list of all rationals goes on forever, and you can't tack the irrationals at "the end".

Cantor could have just run into a sequencing problem, and considered it a proof. We already know lists can be constructed that contain their diagonals - so the question isn't in my mind, resolved. You can argue dimensional flooding, and I can come back and say you have a sequencing problem… but to do this, I have to solve, not just state, the scattering sequence that proves the dimensional flooding can be listed - at least in order to prove you wrong.

In saying this, it is extremely easy to see dimensional flooding from a sequencing error, and assume it can't be done, when all it really is, is a sequencing error.
 
  • #33
You keep using words in ways different from their usual meaning, together with expressions apparently invented by you, and when asked what you mean you don't explain it. A discussion cannot work that way. I closed the thread.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
9K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K