Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 102 [1528 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 100, 101, 102 Next
Author Message
Jan Burse

Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 85

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:00 pm    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Actually the list ends at 666.

Albrecht wrote:

 Quote: The list of all natural numbers don't exist Assumption: The list of all natural numbers exists. The following sketch shows the sequence of the natural numbers in a mono-cipher representation: X XX XXX XXXX . . . Since any next line contains the next natural number starting from 1 ("X"), every line under the first line contains a natural number. Since there are infinite many natural numbers, there are infinite many "X" in the first column. The next sketch shows the sequence of natural numbers in which the digits are numbered with their index numbers. The index numbers are in mono-cipher representation too, written with the cipher "0" and in vertical orientation. 0000 . . . X000 XX00 XXX0 XXXX . . . The sequence of the vertical sets of "0" represents the sequence of the natural numbers as the sequence of the horizontal sets of the "X" represents the natural numbers. So, in both sequences hold the same sentence: since no natural number contains infinite many digits no horizontal set of "X" and no vertical set of "0" is infinite in size. In consequence, there must be more "X" in the first column as there are "0" in any column and there must be more "0" in the first line as there are "X" in any line. Now we can conclude from the second sketch that there must be at least two lines in sequence, which contains (at least one) "X" but no "0" and there must be at least one column, which contains (at least one) "0" but no "X". Else there are not infinitely many natural numbers or there are natural numbers with infinitely many digits - witch is both impossible. If there are two lines in sequence, let's call them o and p, which contains "X" but no "0", there is a following line q containing a natural number which do not have an index number for every digit. This is impossible since every digit of every natural number must have an index number. If there is a column, which contains "0" but no "X", the next column contains an index number, which don't correspond to a digit of a natural number. This is impossible since for every index number N there exists at least one natural number with N digits. In consequence, the list of all natural numbers can't exist. The shown contradictions have a great impact on axiomatic set theory: - The proof Cantor's about the existence of more real numbers than natural numbers don't hold - The existence of infinite sets is self contradicting - ZFC is self contradicting Best regards Albrecht Siegfried Storz Mannheim, Germany This is the translation of the first posting of the thread "Die Liste aller natürlichen Zahlen existiert NICHT"
Reef Fish
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 200

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:14 pm    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Albrecht wrote:
 Quote: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Of course the list exists -- that's how you tell denumerable infinity
from nondenumerable (or uncountable) infinity.

It exists, but is COUNTABLY infinite.

As a matter of fact, there is a difference between an EFFECTIVELY
countable sequence, and one that is not effectively countable,
but countably infinite nevertheless.

All this came back from the Foundations of Mathematics courses
I had taken (three different courses in the Foundations, all
perfectly useless for me today <G>) from text books written by
such Foundations gurus as Sierpinski, Kolmogorov, and other
Russian and Polish mathematicians.

 Quote: Assumption: The list of all natural numbers exists.

That's the consequence of the Axiomatic development of the
Real Number System, and the development of the cardinal
numbers.

-- Bob.
Mike Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 119

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:41 pm    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Albrecht wrote:
 Quote: The list of all natural numbers don't exist Assumption: The list of all natural numbers exists. The following sketch shows the sequence of the natural numbers in a mono-cipher representation: X XX XXX XXXX . . . Since any next line contains the next natural number starting from 1 ("X"), every line under the first line contains a natural number. Since there are infinite many natural numbers, there are infinite many "X" in the first column. The next sketch shows the sequence of natural numbers in which the digits are numbered with their index numbers. The index numbers are in mono-cipher representation too, written with the cipher "0" and in vertical orientation. 0000 . . . X000 XX00 XXX0 XXXX . . . The sequence of the vertical sets of "0" represents the sequence of the natural numbers as the sequence of the horizontal sets of the "X" represents the natural numbers. So, in both sequences hold the same sentence: since no natural number contains infinite many digits no horizontal set of "X" and no vertical set of "0" is infinite in size. In consequence, there must be more "X" in the first column as there are "0" in any column and there must be more "0" in the first line as there are "X" in any line.

True.

 Quote: Now we can conclude from the second sketch that there must be at least two lines in sequence, which contains (at least one) "X" but no "0" and there must be at least one column, which contains (at least one) "0" but no "X".

False. This doesn't follow.

 Quote: Else there are not infinitely many natural numbers or there are natural numbers with infinitely many digits - witch is both impossible.

This doesn't follow.

 Quote: If there are two lines in sequence, let's call them o and p, which contains "X" but no "0",

There isn't. Every row contains a countably infinite number of "0" and
a finite number of "X".

 Quote: there is a following line q containing a natural number which do not have an index number for every digit. This is impossible since every digit of every natural number must have an index number. If there is a column, which contains "0" but no "X",

There isn't. Every column contains a countably infinite number of "X"
and a finite number of "0".

 Quote: the next column contains an index number, which don't correspond to a digit of a natural number. This is impossible since for every index number N there exists at least one natural number with N digits. In consequence, the list of all natural numbers can't exist.

False.

 Quote: The shown contradictions have a great impact on axiomatic set theory: - The proof Cantor's about the existence of more real numbers than natural numbers don't hold

False.

 Quote: - The existence of infinite sets is self contradicting

False.

 Quote: - ZFC is self contradicting

Definately false.

-- mike
John Jones
science forum beginner

Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 13

 Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:46 pm    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist Wow. Isn't it just great that we, the public, can be certain of the infinite number and its ilk? Aren't we lucky that we can rely on the experts concerning the necessary existence of infinite numbers?
Hero
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 220

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:06 pm    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

John Jones schrieb:

 Quote: Wow. Isn't it just great that we, the public, can be certain of the infinite number and its ilk? Aren't we lucky that we can rely on the experts concerning the necessary existence of infinite numbers? No, You can stay inside with a finite number. But what if Your daughter

Hero
PS You can become an expert too, if You want. A few centuries ago
someone who could read and write was considered to be an expert already.
John Jones
science forum beginner

Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 13

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Hero wrote:

You can't add one to an unnamed number and expect to get a named
number. I hope I am not expected to consider that there are unnamed
numbers, and that these can be used with named numbers.
Gene Ward Smith
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 409

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:15 pm    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Albrecht wrote:
 Quote: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Didn't we just have this conversation in German?
Hero
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 220

Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:21 pm    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

John Jones schrieb:

 Quote: Hero wrote: But what if Your daughter asks: "If i add one to Your number, what i'll get?" You can't add one to an unnamed number and expect to get a named number. I hope I am not expected to consider that there are unnamed numbers, and that these can be used with named numbers. You didn't wanted to rely on experts talking about infinite numbers, so

i proposed, You stick to a finite one. You can call it with any name
You like, but if You lay down just as many cents or grains or whatever
You prefer, Your daughter might lay down one more to them.
Just like that.
Hero
Christian Stapfer
science forum beginner

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 15

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:39 am    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

"Mike Kelly" <mk4284@bris.ac.uk> wrote in message
 Quote: Albrecht wrote: The list of all natural numbers don't exist Assumption: The list of all natural numbers exists. The following sketch shows the sequence of the natural numbers in a mono-cipher representation: X XX XXX XXXX . . . Since any next line contains the next natural number starting from 1 ("X"), every line under the first line contains a natural number. Since there are infinite many natural numbers, there are infinite many "X" in the first column. The next sketch shows the sequence of natural numbers in which the digits are numbered with their index numbers. The index numbers are in mono-cipher representation too, written with the cipher "0" and in vertical orientation. 0000 . . . X000 XX00 XXX0 XXXX . . . The sequence of the vertical sets of "0" represents the sequence of the natural numbers as the sequence of the horizontal sets of the "X" represents the natural numbers. So, in both sequences hold the same sentence: since no natural number contains infinite many digits no horizontal set of "X" and no vertical set of "0" is infinite in size. In consequence, there must be more "X" in the first column as there are "0" in any column and there must be more "0" in the first line as there are "X" in any line. True. Now we can conclude from the second sketch that there must be at least two lines in sequence, which contains (at least one) "X" but no "0" and there must be at least one column, which contains (at least one) "0" but no "X". False. This doesn't follow. Else there are not infinitely many natural numbers or there are natural numbers with infinitely many digits - witch is both impossible. This doesn't follow. If there are two lines in sequence, let's call them o and p, which contains "X" but no "0", There isn't. Every row contains a countably infinite number of "0" and a finite number of "X". there is a following line q containing a natural number which do not have an index number for every digit. This is impossible since every digit of every natural number must have an index number. If there is a column, which contains "0" but no "X", There isn't. Every column contains a countably infinite number of "X" and a finite number of "0". the next column contains an index number, which don't correspond to a digit of a natural number. This is impossible since for every index number N there exists at least one natural number with N digits. In consequence, the list of all natural numbers can't exist. False. The shown contradictions have a great impact on axiomatic set theory: - The proof Cantor's about the existence of more real numbers than natural numbers don't hold False. - The existence of infinite sets is self contradicting False. - ZFC is self contradicting Definately false.

A word of caution: You're probably right in claiming
that Albrecht hasn't managed show ZFC to be "self
contradicting". But you would be quite mistaken in
claiming that to say that "ZFC is self contradicting"
is "definitely false". That statement has currently
the same status as its opposite, namely that "ZFC
is consistent (not self contradicting)": it's truth
value is not *known*. And by *known* I do not mean
'hoped for' (Hilbert?) or 'pragmatically assumed'
(Bourbaki) or 'directly *seen* by way of a Platonist
view of the universe of sets' (Gödel) or 'taken
for granted' or some such thing...

Regards,
Christian
guenther.vonKnakspott@gmx
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 24 Apr 2005
Posts: 250

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:28 am    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Albrecht wrote:
<snip crap>
 Quote: Albrecht Siegfried Storz Mannheim, Germany This is the translation of the first posting of the thread "Die Liste aller natürlichen Zahlen existiert NICHT" Why don't you keep this crap to the kraut groups?
John Jones
science forum beginner

Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 13

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:56 am    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Hero wrote:
 Quote: John Jones schrieb: Hero wrote: But what if Your daughter asks: "If i add one to Your number, what i'll get?" You can't add one to an unnamed number and expect to get a named number. I hope I am not expected to consider that there are unnamed numbers, and that these can be used with named numbers. You didn't wanted to rely on experts talking about infinite numbers, so i proposed, You stick to a finite one. You can call it with any name You like, but if You lay down just as many cents or grains or whatever You prefer, Your daughter might lay down one more to them. Just like that. Hero

You have to 'add one' to get a larger number from a number. If you
don't 'add one', then you don't get a larger number.
Aatu Koskensilta
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 277

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:45 am    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Christian Stapfer wrote:
 Quote: A word of caution: You're probably right in claiming that Albrecht hasn't managed show ZFC to be "self contradicting". But you would be quite mistaken in claiming that to say that "ZFC is self contradicting" is "definitely false". That statement has currently the same status as its opposite, namely that "ZFC is consistent (not self contradicting)": it's truth value is not *known*. And by *known* I do not mean 'hoped for' (Hilbert?) or 'pragmatically assumed' (Bourbaki) or 'directly *seen* by way of a Platonist view of the universe of sets' (Gödel) or 'taken for granted' or some such thing...

The consistency of ZFC is a trivial consequence of the truth of the
currently accepted principles of set theory, so if one accepts these
principles there is nothing problematic in the consistency of ZFC.
Whether we 'know' these principles can of course be endlessly debated,
but if we don't know them then there is no basis to claim that we know
theorems of ZFC (not known to provable from weaker theories) but don't
know "ZFC is consistent"; these theorems are then equally 'hoped for',
'seen' or 'taken for granted'.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Abstract Dissonance
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 201

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:54 am    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

"Christian Stapfer" <nil@dev.nul> wrote in message
news:6bd7f\$4483d19c\$54482e3f\$25402@news.hispeed.ch...
 Quote: "Mike Kelly" wrote in message news:1149457274.133285.140760@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... Albrecht wrote: The list of all natural numbers don't exist Assumption: The list of all natural numbers exists. The following sketch shows the sequence of the natural numbers in a mono-cipher representation: X XX XXX XXXX . . . Since any next line contains the next natural number starting from 1 ("X"), every line under the first line contains a natural number. Since there are infinite many natural numbers, there are infinite many "X" in the first column. The next sketch shows the sequence of natural numbers in which the digits are numbered with their index numbers. The index numbers are in mono-cipher representation too, written with the cipher "0" and in vertical orientation. 0000 . . . X000 XX00 XXX0 XXXX . . . The sequence of the vertical sets of "0" represents the sequence of the natural numbers as the sequence of the horizontal sets of the "X" represents the natural numbers. So, in both sequences hold the same sentence: since no natural number contains infinite many digits no horizontal set of "X" and no vertical set of "0" is infinite in size. In consequence, there must be more "X" in the first column as there are "0" in any column and there must be more "0" in the first line as there are "X" in any line. True.

False. Are there more odd positive numbers than even? After all, you start
with 1 so surely there is atleast one more odd?

The fact there are the same amount... both are infinite. Notice also that
nth column in a list with n columns has exactly the same 0's as the X's in
the first column.
.
.
Note that the "process" of ... and . should be shown to be commutable. You
cannot treat the second as a finite process and then the first as an
infinite one or vice versa.

Proof? Why isn't

XXXX....
0XXX
00XX
000X
0000
..
..
..

Just as relvant? i.e., (swaping the X's and O's results in an isomorphic
representation).

i.e., by the original posters same argument there are more 0's than X's.
(hence they must be the same)

Jon

.
Christian Stapfer
science forum beginner

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 15

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:38 am    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
 Quote: Christian Stapfer wrote: A word of caution: You're probably right in claiming that Albrecht hasn't managed show ZFC to be "self contradicting". But you would be quite mistaken in claiming that to say that "ZFC is self contradicting" is "definitely false". That statement has currently the same status as its opposite, namely that "ZFC is consistent (not self contradicting)": its truth value is not *known*. And by *known* I do not mean 'hoped for' (Hilbert?) or 'pragmatically assumed' (Bourbaki) or 'directly *seen* by way of a Platonist view of the universe of sets' (Gödel) or 'taken for granted' or some such thing... The consistency of ZFC is a trivial consequence

It is not even a consequence: for most mathematicians
it is nothing but what they, failing to have a direct
currently accepted principles of set theory" themselves.
But consistency and current acceptance are not exactly
the same...

 Quote: of the truth of the currently accepted principles of set theory, so if one accepts these principles

Yes, but what a big IF indeed! So you are not
arguing anything here: you are just telling me
that you are following the herd....

 Quote: there is nothing problematic in the consistency of ZFC.

Talk of uttering trivialities: if one believes
in ZFC one believes in ZFC. That much is obvious.

 Quote: Whether we 'know' these principles can of course be endlessly debated,

There still remains the possibility of the derivability
of a direct contradiction, you know: and such a thing
might come to be known quite precisely...

 Quote: but if we don't know them then there is no basis to claim that we know theorems of ZFC (not known to provable from weaker theories) but don't know "ZFC is consistent"; these theorems are then equally 'hoped for', 'seen' or 'taken for granted'.

To argue like that is pure nonsense: there is no
way to rationaly justify the use of ZFC by *such*
circular rhetoric alone. Not *everything* is exactly
as problematic as the principles stated by ZFC.

Regards,
Christian
Christian Stapfer
science forum beginner

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 15

Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:41 am    Post subject: Re: The list of all natural numbers don't exist

Abstract Dissonance wrote:

 Quote: Christian Stapfer wrote:

You did not answer even a single sentence that

Regards,
Christian

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 102 [1528 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 100, 101, 102 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Sun Oct 21, 2018 2:06 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics a subset of natural number levine121323@yahoo.com Math 1 Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:17 am The List of All Lists Russell Easterly Math 19 Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:21 am D-numbers: a generalization of Sophie Germain twin primes wkehowski@cox.net Math 8 Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:48 am Does WinTeX Exist? John Schutkeker Math 3 Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:30 pm Best fit orthogonal basis for list of vectors chengiz@my-deja.com num-analysis 4 Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:16 pm

Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters