Live data from Hacker News

How real are real numbers? (2004)

arxiv.org

11–20 of 275 posts

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#11

"So, in Borel’s view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely." (Paraphrasing, because there are only countably many possible math papers that might describe a number.) I think Borel has confused names with things. The fact that we can only write down only countably many expressions for numbers doesn't mean that there are numbers that we may never…

yep, like many other faux paradoxes, it stems from mixing language and meta-language

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#12
post #5

"So, in Borel’s view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely." (Paraphrasing, because there are only countably many possible math papers that might describe a number.) I think Borel has confused names with things. The fact that we can only write down only countably many expressions for numbers doesn't mean that there are numbers that we may never…

> The fact that we can only write down only countably many expressions for numbers doesn't mean that there are numbers that we may never write expressions for Yes it does: there are countably many numbers we can define, and the reals are uncountable, therefore there are uncountably many numbers that cannot be defined.

"Real numbers that cannot be defined with language" is not a well-defined set though. Just like "integers that cannot be described in less than 100 words" is not well-defined (I could reach a contradiction by pointing to the "smallest integer that cannot be described in less than 100 words").

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#13
post #12
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that we can only write down only countably many expressions for numbers doesn't mean that there are numbers that we may never write expressions for Yes it does: there are countably many numbers we can define, and the reals are uncountable, therefore there are uncountably many numbers that cannot be defined.

"Real numbers that cannot be defined with language" is not a well-defined set though. Just like "integers that cannot be described in less than 100 words" is not well-defined (I could reach a contradiction by pointing to the "smallest integer that cannot be described in less than 100 words").

A sentence which fails to specify a real uniquely… fails to specify a real uniquely. Borel's talking about numbers which can be defined uniquely: that is, picked out, identified. Your Berry-paradox description doesn't identify an integer.

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#14
post #12
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that we can only write down only countably many expressions for numbers doesn't mean that there are numbers that we may never write expressions for Yes it does: there are countably many numbers we can define, and the reals are uncountable, therefore there are uncountably many numbers that cannot be defined.

"Real numbers that cannot be defined with language" is not a well-defined set though. Just like "integers that cannot be described in less than 100 words" is not well-defined (I could reach a contradiction by pointing to the "smallest integer that cannot be described in less than 100 words").

True, but the argument that one set is larger still works.

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#15
post #9

Unrelated, but I read a article a while back which said something similar, but it was based on the fact that our entire mathematical system is designed around "base 10" and as such is only relevant in many constructs to our specific human 'ten fingered', interpretation of math.

This is false. As soon as you get to first-year undergraduate maths, one discards log-to-base-10, all but permanently. Nearly all the rest of integer arithmetic is performed in an arbitrary base (if it's being considered "additively" in some sense), or much more commonly, using prime factorisation, which is independent of any base.

Areas of maths which are not number theory basically never mention the number which is twice five at all, and could be done happily without ever knowing that there was some privileged base in which we count the naturals.

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#16
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the connection between figuring out that the universe is discrete and learning that the universe is a simulation. Not even in our universe are all simulations done using digital computers, some are done using analog computers.

But in our universe, if it's discrete on a macroscopic level, then it's either inherently a natural number (it can be counted), or it's intelligently created.

Our best theories, General Relativity and the Standard Model, say that the world is a continuum.

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#17

"So, in Borel’s view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely." (Paraphrasing, because there are only countably many possible math papers that might describe a number.) I think Borel has confused names with things. The fact that we can only write down only countably many expressions for numbers doesn't mean that there are numbers that we may never…

I think you (and some other commenters) are responding to something different - potential vs actual infinity - not being able to write down all natural numbers, but we can potentially write any number(with some assumptions like an infinite universe).

Whereas the point being made is different and needs some math background which is the work of Cantor. Countable can include all natural numbers that you count until infinity, and the reals are uncountable in that they exceed even this.

The proof of this fact(Reals are uncountable), has the same idea involved in Turing machines halting problem and also Godel's theorem. The general version is the power set of a set(set of subsets of a set) cant be put in one to one correspondence with original set. If you assume such a correspondence, then () leads to a contradiction.

Reals are sequences of naturals which include sequences of 1's and 0's which can be interpreted as subsets of naturals(a sequence represents the subset of indexes which get assigned the value 1). So reals are bigger than the power set of naturals.

Also, the infinite countable union of countable sets is countable. The number of grid points(integer coordinates) on a plane is the same as the number of grid points on a line. You can set up a zig-zag correspondence. A salesman can visit all grid points on a plane in infinte time. This is used to prove rationals are countable. So even countably infinitely different symbolic systems doesnt help.

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#18
post #17

"So, in Borel’s view, most reals, with probability one, are mathematical fantasies, because there is no way to specify them uniquely." (Paraphrasing, because there are only countably many possible math papers that might describe a number.) I think Borel has confused names with things. The fact that we can only write down only countably many expressions for numbers doesn't mean that there are numbers that we may never…

I think you (and some other commenters) are responding to something different - potential vs actual infinity - not being able to write down all natural numbers, but we can potentially write any number(with some assumptions like an infinite universe). Whereas the point being made is different and needs some math background which is the work of Cantor. Countable can include all natural numbers that you count until infi…

Nitpick: the infinite countable union of countable well-ordered sets is countable. This statement is immune to the failure of Choice.

Re: How real are real numbers? (2004)

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in our universe, if it's discrete on a macroscopic level, then it's either inherently a natural number (it can be counted), or it's intelligently created.

Our best theories, General Relativity and the Standard Model, say that the world is a continuum.

Then my statement is vacuously true. (This was intentional, but perhaps a bit obscure.)
Post reply on HN