Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • So, I got a lot of messages and comments from people after the video about Cantor's Diagonal

  • Proof suggesting the following:

  • If you can take an infinite list of rational numbers, and prove it can't ever contain all

  • rational numbers because you take one key digit from each number and make a new real

  • number that's different in every key digit and is therefore not on the list no matter

  • what the list is, why can't you reverse this process, try to make a list of whole numbers,

  • and prove that there's more whole numbers than whole numbers by going on the other diagonal,

  • a reverse-Cantor?

  • I kind of like this line of thinking.

  • On the one hand, it's a mathematical way of thinking.

  • If a proof seems to prove one thing is weird, you should probably test it to see if it proves

  • everything is weird, and if everything ends up weird you might have a flaw in your premise

  • or your thinking or maybe everything actually is weird.

  • On the other hand, I don't like this line of thinking because it reminds me of the slippery

  • slope fallacy.

  • That's the one where you're like, well, if that argument works for this case, then why

  • wouldn't it work for this more general case, and who knows where it will stop, so we'd

  • better not allow it in the first place!

  • And that's not actually a logical or mathematical argument if you don't prove it actually does

  • apply to the more general case.

  • So can you do the reverse cantor?

  • Does this argument actually apply?

  • If you take one digit from each number on your infinite list of all whole numbers, and

  • change them all, shouldn't you get something that can't be on the list, thus proving the

  • list is incomplete?

  • Well, you do get something not on the list, so, that part of the reasoning is correct.

  • Let's try it out: for every list item, we have a decimal place with a number in it.

  • There's as many list items as decimal places, and there's an infinite number of each.

  • That means that this number we're constructing will have infinite digits going out to the

  • left, all of which conflict with the corresponding list number's nth decimal place.

  • Now, the list of all whole numbers is infinite and includes arbitrarily large numbers approaching

  • infinity, but no real number, no counting number, no whole number is actually infinite.

  • They all stop somewhere.

  • They all end up with infinite zeroes at some point.

  • But this number we're constructing doesn't stop, it has to have infinite digits going

  • out to the left in order to conflict with every number in every decimal place.

  • No infinite zeroes.

  • So no, it's not on the list, but it's also not a badly-named-so-called real number.

  • Real numbers can have infinite digits going out to the right, any combination of digits

  • going out to the right infinitely, no last digit, .9repeating actually exactly equals

  • 1 and pi never ends or repeats and any random roll of infinite dice is a number different

  • from the same number with one digit randomly changed, that's how many digits there are,

  • etcetera, which is why the proof does work for reals, it's all in the decimals, the inbetween,

  • but real numbers can't have infinite digits going out to the left, the counting numbers

  • approach infinity but they don't get there and they certainly don't go past it, so the

  • reverse-cantor is not a problem.

  • But it is interesting to think about what it might mean to extend the real numbers to

  • include ones that do have infinite digits to the left.

  • I mentioned P-adic numbers in a video about Kinds of Infinity, and p-adics have infinite

  • digits going to the left but they don't work the same way as reals so this doesn't actually

  • represent an infinite number.

  • But what if you could represent infinite numbers like this?

  • You'd run into some difficult questions.

  • How do you define them?

  • Is this number bigger or smaller than this number?

  • You can't compare the leftmost digit, because there is no leftmost digit.

  • Are they all equal, simply infinity?

  • How do you add them?

  • If you do it the normal way, isn't it weird that adding ...5555555 to ...555555 is ....000,

  • there's no leftmost digit for the 1 to get carried to so it's just gone, which is the

  • same as if you subtracted them.

  • I think it probably all devolves from there, because if ...55555 = -...5555 then add ...555550

  • to both sides to get 5=-5 and from there you break all of mathematics for all numbers,

  • so you definitely can't do arithmetic the obvious way, if at all. or maybe .....000

  • is an infinitely large number that's different from just plain 0, which is a nice concept,

  • if you can find a way to make it work.

  • Like, if you want ....000 to be different from 0, you might be in trouble if ....0000

  • + ....55555 is the same as 0 + .....5555.

  • But maybe this is a special case that you can avoid the same way you have to avoid dividing

  • by zero for algebra to work.

  • I dunno.

  • You can play with that if you want, I'm going to bed.

So, I got a lot of messages and comments from people after the video about Cantor's Diagonal

字幕と単語

ワンタップで英和辞典検索 単語をクリックすると、意味が表示されます

B2 中上級

リバースカントール (The Reverse Cantor)

  • 1 0
    林宜悉 に公開 2021 年 01 月 14 日
動画の中の単語