4 ms·
Diagonalization might be a tricky topic for beginners, but that is also who we teach it to. It is usually in your introduction to mathematical proofs class, and
by ouid 4y ago
Diagonalization might be a tricky topic for beginners, but that is also who we teach it to. It is usually in your introduction to mathematical proofs class, and even there it is taught in the first couple of weeks.
There is an additional problem with the argument as written, as there are in fact "relations" on the "decimal expansions" of real numbers. for instance .099... = .1000....
Notice that none of the places in this expansion agree with each other so this might indeed be the element you construct from the following list:
`.1000...
.0100...
.0010...
...`
You might say, ok well pick a number different from a_i and also different from 0 or 9, which does indeed get you a number not in your list, but it really begs the question of "why doesn't this work in binary?", and is also far less intuitive than factoring the problem into two steps of |N|~=|P(N)|=|R|. This approach is more general anyway.
- chii 4y ago> for instance .099... = .1000 wait, so how does diagonalization account for this? The argument, as i recall, was that every real number in the "fake list" differs from the generated real number by at least 1 position in the decimal expansion. But doesn't this argument depend on the assumption that every real number has a unique decimal expansion?
- ouid 4y agoWell, the short answer is that there aren't that many related decimal expansions at most two for any expansion, and a countable number of pairs, but it's a problem with the argument.