Numbers which are not exactly calculable by any method.

  • Thread starter Thread starter bjshnog
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method Numbers
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the existence of real numbers that are not calculable by any method. It is established that while the set of computable numbers is countable, the set of all real numbers is uncountable, implying that most real numbers are non-computable. Although examples of non-computable numbers like Chaitin's constant exist, naming such a number often leads to a description of how to compute it. Participants express curiosity about symbols representing the set of all numbers, clarifying that the set of real numbers is denoted as ℝ. The conversation highlights the complexity and intrigue surrounding non-computable numbers in mathematics.
bjshnog
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Is there any way to prove that a real number exists which is not calculable by any method?

For example, you could have known irrational and/or transcendental numbers like e or π. You could have e^x where x is any calculable number, whether it be by infinite series with hyperbolic/normal trigonometric functions and an infinite number of random terms, and use that as the upper limit for an integral of whatever other type of function or combination of functions.

Is there a possible way to prove that there exists any real number that is not equal to any combination of functions (apart from 0/0)?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
bjshnog said:
Is there any way to prove that a real number exists which is not calculable by any method?

For example, you could have known irrational and/or transcendental numbers like e or π. You could have e^x where x is any calculable number, whether it be by infinite series with hyperbolic/normal trigonometric functions and an infinite number of random terms, and use that as the upper limit for an integral of whatever other type of function or combination of functions.

Is there a possible way to prove that there exists any real number that is not equal to any combination of functions (apart from 0/0)?
It's easy to prove such number exists (the site micromass links to shows that the set of all "computable numbers" is countable while the set of all real numbers is uncountable. In a very real sense "almost all number are not computable".

I don't believe, however, it is possible to give an example of such a number- in fact the very naming of such a number would probably be a description of how to compute it!
 
Interesting. Just out of curiosity, is there a standard symbol for the "set of everything" or "set of all numbers"?
 
bjshnog said:
Interesting. Just out of curiosity, is there a standard symbol for the "set of everything" or "set of all numbers"?

The set of all real numbers is denoted \mathbb{R}. The latex is \mathbb{R}.

Of course that is not the set of "everything"; in standard set theory there is no set of everything. The set of real numbers is the set we're talking about when we talk about numbers in this thread. The computable numbers are a subset of the reals.

Interestingly, there is a noncomputable real number that has a name and whose properties can be talked about. It's called Chaitin's constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaitin's_constant
 
I actually began thinking about non-computable numbers, so I Googled it and found Ω. That is what led me to post here, to see if anyone knew of any other non-computable numbers with known properties.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top