3 ms·
It’s interesting only as a refutation of the original quote: > consider the set of numbers that cannot be described using any finite collection of symbols. Suc
by tshaddox 4y ago
It’s interesting only as a refutation of the original quote:
> consider the set of numbers that cannot be described using any finite collection of symbols. Such numbers must exist because there are only a countably infinite number of numbers that can be described using a finite collection of symbols, but there are an uncountably infinite number of real numbers.
- rcme 4y agoYou’re misunderstanding the quote. It’s not saying that you can’t name any individual number. It’s saying that any scheme you can think of to name numbers involving a finite number of symbols will have numbers that can’t be expressed in that scheme.