cant_count
- 3
- 0
Sorry, meant dark energy.
The discussion revolves around the existence and properties of irrational numbers in relation to rational numbers. Participants explore concepts of continuity, density, and the interleaving of rational and irrational numbers within the real number line, touching on definitions and mathematical implications.
Participants generally agree that both rational and irrational numbers exist within the real numbers, but there is no consensus on the implications of their interleaving or the definitions of irrationals as limits of rational sequences. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the completeness and properties of these number sets.
Some statements rely on specific definitions of continuity and density, and there are unresolved questions about the nature of limits and convergence in relation to irrational numbers.
cant_count said:Thank you for suggesting Cantor - very interesting. Another quick question: there are integers, rational numbers, irrationals (which can be expressed using polynomials), transcendentals (which can't, but still can be defined, e.g. pi and e). What about numbers that cannot be defined in any way whatsoever? Does such a category have a name? And are there more of them than anything else? Are they ever used in mathematics?
(If they are still transcendentals, they'd need to be distinguished from the definable ones, I'd be thinking.) Perhaps they can't be discussed because they're undetectable or unprovable by definition? But there should be more of them than anything else, right? (Like dark matter ..!)
- Just wondering
gb7nash said:I've heard of this, though my knowledge on it is very limited. This is more of a physics question than mathematical question though. In the sense of the real numbers, time and length are not discrete.
In terms of preciseness, this would probably be better. However, you would need some kind of mechanism/scheme to determine the actually length of a Planck. This would require insane detail, since if you're off by just a tiny bit, the error between the actual length and the observed length will amplify when measuring visible objects.
Bacle said:I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but there are efforts to "algebraize" parts of calculus and analysis; specifically with ideas like those of algebraic derivations on rings
( maps associated with a ring that satisfy the Leibniz property), which are(intended?) discrete substitutes of the derivative, which do not assume the continuum. These algebraic substitutes are also used to solve differential equations in differential Galois theory. There are also areas like discrete differential geometry which try to do the same.
micromass said:Your intuition is correct! There are indeed things like undefinable and uncomputable numbers! Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definable_real_number and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number