Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fact, since there are only a countably infinite number of symbolic representations but an uncountable number of irrational numbers, nearly all of them cannot be written down at all!
If you mean representations using finite sequences, sure. But the set of all infinite sequences (e.g., of digits) is uncountable.
Intermediate Algebra
91–100 of 121 posts
Re: Intermediate Algebra
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of assuming an understanding of what natural numbers are, you could have continued to define all of them as equivalence classes, as that is what they are. The integers are the equivalence classes of differences of natural numbers, while the natural numbers are the equivalence classes of finite sets having the same number of elements (i.e. which may have a bijection between themselves), including the empty set…
> having the same number of elements How do you define the _number_ of elements of a finite set without defining natural numbers first?
Re: Intermediate Algebra
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of assuming an understanding of what natural numbers are, you could have continued to define all of them as equivalence classes, as that is what they are. The integers are the equivalence classes of differences of natural numbers, while the natural numbers are the equivalence classes of finite sets having the same number of elements (i.e. which may have a bijection between themselves), including the empty set…
> having the same number of elements How do you define the _number_ of elements of a finite set without defining natural numbers first?
You just need to be able to show an one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two sets. If an one-to-one correspondence cannot exist, then the sets have different numbers of elements.
This relationship divides then the sets in equivalence classes. If you choose a representative of each equivalence class that you use to compare to other sets to see if they have the same number of elements and you give a name to each of those representatives, you have defined the so-called natural numbers.
This is actually how the numbers originated, for humans and for many other animals.
Nobody conceived a system of axioms and then thought about what could satisfy them. That came much later and is useful only for establishing which are the essential properties of some mathematical objects. Most of the definitions of various mathematical objects as equivalence classes correspond to their real historical origin, because recognizing that some things are equivalent according to some criterion is how abstract concepts are created based on concrete things.
When you see a red apple and a red rose, you understand that they have a common property, being red, and then you name this property "red" and you can recognize the same property in other objects.
When you see 5 sheep and 5 crows, you understand that these groups have a common property, having 5 members, and the same property characterizes the set of fingers of your hand. You name this property "five" and when you see another group of things you can compare it with the set of fingers of your hand to see if it also has 5 members.
Re: Intermediate Algebra
#94When a book is titled "Algebra", it's always a bit ambiguous whether that means "high school algebra" or "abstract algebra". I clicked on this link thinking it was about group/field/ring/etc theory and wondering what an 'intermediate' treatment of those topics would look like.
Re: Intermediate Algebra
#95Why are the author (John Redden) and acknowledgements removed from the github.io version? https://scholar.flatworldknowledge.com/books/4372/fwk-redden... https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/134
"This text was adapted by Saylor Academy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License without attribution as requested by the work's original creator or licensor. "
They seem to be saying that Redden didn't want his name on the Saylor version.
Re: Intermediate Algebra
#96Re: Intermediate Algebra
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you mean representations using finite sequences, sure. But the set of all infinite sequences (e.g., of digits) is uncountable.
That's the point. There is uncountably many infinite sequences, but we only have countably many symbolic representations, so we can't write most real numbers down even with infinite time.
Re: Intermediate Algebra
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you mean representations using finite sequences, sure. But the set of all infinite sequences (e.g., of digits) is uncountable.
Representing a number as an infinite sequence of digits isn't helpful if you are trying to write down the number. You can't write an infinite number of digits after all
Re: Intermediate Algebra
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> having the same number of elements How do you define the _number_ of elements of a finite set without defining natural numbers first?
you can show two sets have the same number of elements without having an intrinsic notion of "number" - find a bijection between them, mapping every member of set A to set B and vice versa, and you know you have two identically-sized sets without doing any counting.
Re: Intermediate Algebra
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you mean Terence Tao's book on Analysis? If not, could you post a reference please? I'd be very interested in a Terry Tao book on Algebra :)
I did mean Analysis, sorry. Too late to edit now I suspect.