4 ms·
Not sure what's on the vid. Didn't watch it. But if I understand you correctly, the following is impossible as shown in Cantor's simple diagonalization argument
by neonskies 3y ago
Not sure what's on the vid. Didn't watch it. But if I understand you correctly, the following is impossible as shown in Cantor's simple diagonalization argument:
> Follow each branch as deeply as possible counting all sub branches until there are no sub branches left.
- smac__ 3y agoGood point, the depth first search algorithm is a bit lack luster for this case: 1 -> .1 2 -> .01 3 -> .001 4 -> .0001 5 -> .00001 6 -> .000001 . -> .0∞1 I would definitely recommend not judging the quality of the video based upon the quality of my reasoning in the experiment.
- neonskies 3y ago> 1 -> .1 2 -> .01 3 -> .001 4 -> .0001 5 -> .00001 6 -> .000001 . -> .0∞1 That would only count the rationals which you can definitely count off a carefully arranged matrix of rationals. But reals = rationals and irrationals and the irrationals are uncountable.
- smac__ 3y agoYou are definitely right, I missed quite a few numbers in this set. (Thank you!)