4 ms·
> I can't see how to guarantee that this generated number wasn't already in the set. The trick here is the diagonal argument [1]. The set (S) contains all rea
by missblit 6y ago
> I can't see how to guarantee that this generated number wasn't already in the set.
The trick here is the diagonal argument [1].
The set (S) contains all real numbers that can be described by a valid French sentence (enumerating French sentences in some fixed order). For example we could come up with an enumeration such that the first few elements are:
S_0 = .7139847654
S_1 = .111111111111
S_2 = .93939
S_3 = .313331333133 repeating
...
We can construct a diagonal number r such that the ith digit of r differs from the ith digit of S_i for all S_i in S:
r = 0.8204... (8 = 1 + S_0[0], 2 = 1 + S_1[1], 0 = S_2[2] + 1, etc)
For any element S_i in S; r and S_i differ in at least one digit (because we constructed it that way); which is why r is guaranteed to not be in S.
(But this argument can be translated to French, hence the paradox!)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument
- karmakaze 6y agoAh got it. This seems different than the idea of there being 'more' real numbers and is rather a quirk of an unclear specification of set membership. This seems to be covered in 'Richardian Numbers'[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%27s_paradox