Das Kalenderblatt 091030

29/10/2009 - 18:05 von WM | Report spam
I have seen many proofs of Cantor's theorem that the irrationals (or
reals) are uncountable, and none is at all convincing. [...]
The primary operational fact here is that no matter how many
irrationals you have to count, you will always have an integer
available to count it with. Always. Therefore, the claim that there
are more irrationals or reals than integers or rationals is nonsense.
Supporters of Cantor reply that this chart need not be in any
order. It can be a random chart. That is, a11 can be higher or lower
than a12 or a42. And line 2 can be a higher or lower irrational than
line 1 or 3. But this is not to the point, since whether random or in
series the chart can never be postulated to be complete. This fact is
not proof that the interval is uncountable. It is proof that Cantor's
assumptions are false. [...]
Cantor also claims that the irrationals are infinitely more dense
than the rationals. But the rationals are already infinitely dense.
You cannot get more dense than continuous. You cannot get more dense
than infinitely dense. The rationals, by themselves, are continuous.
They have no space between them on the number line. You cannot get
more dense than that. You may ask, if the rationals are already
continuous, how can you add the irrationals to them? Where do they fit
on the number line? The answer is that they don't fit in that way.
Numbers and number lines are abstractions. You do not "add" the
irrationals to the rationals, like adding three oranges to two
oranges. Rationals and irrationals are relationships between numbers—
therefore they are not the same order of abstraction as the numbers
themselves. Besides, at infinity, the irrationals and the rationals
are the same thing. Just as .9 repeating is the same as 1 at infinity,
the distance between some rational and some irrational goes to zero at
infinity. There is no distance between .9 repeating and 1—that is what
a continuous numberline means. It works the same way with the
rationals and irrationals. You do not need to find room for the
irrationals on an infinitely dense rational numberline. At infinity,
one is an overlay of the other, just as .9 repeating is an overlay of
1.
This means that there is no such thing as an uncountable set.
[Miles Mathis: "Introductory Remarks on Cantor"]
http://milesmathis.com/cant.html

Ich danke Eckard Blumschein für den Hinweis auf diese Quelle.

Gruß, WM
 

Lesen sie die antworten

#1 Carsten Schultz
29/10/2009 - 18:23 | Warnen spam
WM schrieb:
[...]
[Miles Mathis: "Introductory Remarks on Cantor"]
http://milesmathis.com/cant.html

Ich danke Eckard Blumschein für den Hinweis auf diese Quelle.



Und ich danke Dir für die Quelle, nàmlich wegen dieses Kleinods:

“Hilbert imagines a hotel with infinite rooms. On one night, the hotel
is found to be full. Hilbert then asks, "what if someone else comes to
reception, begging a room?" What do we do? This paradox [...] can be
dismissed with one comment. If the infinite hotel is full, then no one
can come begging a room. They are all already in the hotel.”

Carsten Schultz (2:38, 33:47)
http://carsten.codimi.de/
PGP/GPG key on the pgp.net key servers,
fingerprint on my home page.

Ähnliche fragen