Does $pi$ contain every real?












2












$begingroup$


One can generate decimal expansions between $0$ and $1$ by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.



$pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399...$



for instance, for $m=3$, $n=5$, this will be



3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399...



giving



$0.469363019...$



I can't see why this shouldn't be able to create every real number. But if this creates any real number given a pair if natural numbers $m$ and $n$, it would mean that the cardinality of the continuum is equal to that of the natural numbers.



So I guess this method can't create any real. But why?






elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You literally answered your own question. Also, it's unknown whether the decimal expansion of $pi$ becomes only 1's and 0's after a certain point, so you definitely can't prove as of now that every real number occurs as a subsequence of the digits of $pi$, let alone in the manner you described.
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The number of pairs $n, : k$ is countable!
    $endgroup$
    – R.C.Cowsik
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:58








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I think the more interesting question is : give an example of a real number that cannot be produced like this.
    $endgroup$
    – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:07










  • $begingroup$
    My guess is that this process never creates a rational, as that would require infinite repetition. I don't know if this can be proven using the current tools though.
    $endgroup$
    – SmileyCraft
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:36










  • $begingroup$
    @SmileyCraft I think it is possible to prove that infinite number of rational numbers cannot be created(although I didn't done it), but proving that no rational is there sounds hard
    $endgroup$
    – Holo
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:53
















2












$begingroup$


One can generate decimal expansions between $0$ and $1$ by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.



$pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399...$



for instance, for $m=3$, $n=5$, this will be



3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399...



giving



$0.469363019...$



I can't see why this shouldn't be able to create every real number. But if this creates any real number given a pair if natural numbers $m$ and $n$, it would mean that the cardinality of the continuum is equal to that of the natural numbers.



So I guess this method can't create any real. But why?






elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You literally answered your own question. Also, it's unknown whether the decimal expansion of $pi$ becomes only 1's and 0's after a certain point, so you definitely can't prove as of now that every real number occurs as a subsequence of the digits of $pi$, let alone in the manner you described.
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The number of pairs $n, : k$ is countable!
    $endgroup$
    – R.C.Cowsik
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:58








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I think the more interesting question is : give an example of a real number that cannot be produced like this.
    $endgroup$
    – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:07










  • $begingroup$
    My guess is that this process never creates a rational, as that would require infinite repetition. I don't know if this can be proven using the current tools though.
    $endgroup$
    – SmileyCraft
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:36










  • $begingroup$
    @SmileyCraft I think it is possible to prove that infinite number of rational numbers cannot be created(although I didn't done it), but proving that no rational is there sounds hard
    $endgroup$
    – Holo
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:53














2












2








2





$begingroup$


One can generate decimal expansions between $0$ and $1$ by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.



$pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399...$



for instance, for $m=3$, $n=5$, this will be



3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399...



giving



$0.469363019...$



I can't see why this shouldn't be able to create every real number. But if this creates any real number given a pair if natural numbers $m$ and $n$, it would mean that the cardinality of the continuum is equal to that of the natural numbers.



So I guess this method can't create any real. But why?






elementary-set-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




One can generate decimal expansions between $0$ and $1$ by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.



$pi = 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399...$



for instance, for $m=3$, $n=5$, this will be



3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399...



giving



$0.469363019...$



I can't see why this shouldn't be able to create every real number. But if this creates any real number given a pair if natural numbers $m$ and $n$, it would mean that the cardinality of the continuum is equal to that of the natural numbers.



So I guess this method can't create any real. But why?






elementary-set-theory




elementary-set-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 12 '18 at 18:14









verret

3,3161923




3,3161923










asked Dec 12 '18 at 8:52









MrMartinMrMartin

757




757








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You literally answered your own question. Also, it's unknown whether the decimal expansion of $pi$ becomes only 1's and 0's after a certain point, so you definitely can't prove as of now that every real number occurs as a subsequence of the digits of $pi$, let alone in the manner you described.
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The number of pairs $n, : k$ is countable!
    $endgroup$
    – R.C.Cowsik
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:58








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I think the more interesting question is : give an example of a real number that cannot be produced like this.
    $endgroup$
    – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:07










  • $begingroup$
    My guess is that this process never creates a rational, as that would require infinite repetition. I don't know if this can be proven using the current tools though.
    $endgroup$
    – SmileyCraft
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:36










  • $begingroup$
    @SmileyCraft I think it is possible to prove that infinite number of rational numbers cannot be created(although I didn't done it), but proving that no rational is there sounds hard
    $endgroup$
    – Holo
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:53














  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You literally answered your own question. Also, it's unknown whether the decimal expansion of $pi$ becomes only 1's and 0's after a certain point, so you definitely can't prove as of now that every real number occurs as a subsequence of the digits of $pi$, let alone in the manner you described.
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:57






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The number of pairs $n, : k$ is countable!
    $endgroup$
    – R.C.Cowsik
    Dec 12 '18 at 8:58








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I think the more interesting question is : give an example of a real number that cannot be produced like this.
    $endgroup$
    – астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:07










  • $begingroup$
    My guess is that this process never creates a rational, as that would require infinite repetition. I don't know if this can be proven using the current tools though.
    $endgroup$
    – SmileyCraft
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:36










  • $begingroup$
    @SmileyCraft I think it is possible to prove that infinite number of rational numbers cannot be created(although I didn't done it), but proving that no rational is there sounds hard
    $endgroup$
    – Holo
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:53








3




3




$begingroup$
You literally answered your own question. Also, it's unknown whether the decimal expansion of $pi$ becomes only 1's and 0's after a certain point, so you definitely can't prove as of now that every real number occurs as a subsequence of the digits of $pi$, let alone in the manner you described.
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 12 '18 at 8:57




$begingroup$
You literally answered your own question. Also, it's unknown whether the decimal expansion of $pi$ becomes only 1's and 0's after a certain point, so you definitely can't prove as of now that every real number occurs as a subsequence of the digits of $pi$, let alone in the manner you described.
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 12 '18 at 8:57




1




1




$begingroup$
The number of pairs $n, : k$ is countable!
$endgroup$
– R.C.Cowsik
Dec 12 '18 at 8:58






$begingroup$
The number of pairs $n, : k$ is countable!
$endgroup$
– R.C.Cowsik
Dec 12 '18 at 8:58






4




4




$begingroup$
I think the more interesting question is : give an example of a real number that cannot be produced like this.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 12 '18 at 9:07




$begingroup$
I think the more interesting question is : give an example of a real number that cannot be produced like this.
$endgroup$
– астон вілла олоф мэллбэрг
Dec 12 '18 at 9:07












$begingroup$
My guess is that this process never creates a rational, as that would require infinite repetition. I don't know if this can be proven using the current tools though.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 12 '18 at 9:36




$begingroup$
My guess is that this process never creates a rational, as that would require infinite repetition. I don't know if this can be proven using the current tools though.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Dec 12 '18 at 9:36












$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft I think it is possible to prove that infinite number of rational numbers cannot be created(although I didn't done it), but proving that no rational is there sounds hard
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 12 '18 at 9:53




$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft I think it is possible to prove that infinite number of rational numbers cannot be created(although I didn't done it), but proving that no rational is there sounds hard
$endgroup$
– Holo
Dec 12 '18 at 9:53










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

You basically present a mapping from $mathbb N^2$ to $mathbb R$ and ask if the mapping is surjective. Since $mathbb N^2$ is countable, and $mathbb R$ is uncountable, a simple diagonalization argument can be made to show that the mapping cannot be surjective.



In particular, the argument would go like so:




  1. Let $F$ be the mapping you construct going from $mathbb N^2$ to $[0,1]$. That is, $F(m,n)$ is the number obtained by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.

  2. Let $f:mathbb Ntomathbb N^2$ be a bijective function. (we know such a function exists, and it doesn't really matter which one we take) and let $f_1,f_2$ be its components, i.e. $f(n)=(f_1(n), f_2(n))$.

  3. Denote the digits of $F(f(n))$ as $a_i^{(n)}$, that is, $F(f(n)) = 0.a_1^{(n)}a_2^{(n)}a_3^{(n)}dots$

  4. Let $$b_i=begin{cases}1 & text{if } a_i^{(i)} = 0\ 0& text{if } a_i^{(i)} neq 0end{cases}$$

  5. Let $b=0.b_1b_2b_3dots$. Clearly, for all $ninmathbb N$, we see that $F(f(n))neq b$ because the $n$-th digit of $F(f(n))$ is not the same as the $n$-th digit of $b$.

  6. From $5$, it follows that the number $b$ is not in the domain of $Fcirc f$.

  7. Because $f$ is bijective, we conclude that $b$ is not in the domain of $F$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clean re-wording. The diagonalization argument will fail when you can show that the number is just further down the list, as in this case
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:20










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin The diagonalization argument can show that any mapping from a countable set to $mathbb R$ cannot be surjective. It will not fail. It is possible to construct a number that is not in your mapping.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:24










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin: how can you draw any conclusion about a diagonalization argument without even seeing it ? Or you need to prove that no such argument can be written.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:30










  • $begingroup$
    Following this line of reasoning, the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself.
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:32






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @MrMartin Happy to help. Remember to accept the answer if it is what you needed. And a piece of general advice: avoid giving sweeping statements like "the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself. " before trying to prove them. It makes you sound like you get an answer and immediatelly assume it is wrong. The aggressive tone may not go down well with everyone.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:40












Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036431%2fdoes-pi-contain-every-real%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

You basically present a mapping from $mathbb N^2$ to $mathbb R$ and ask if the mapping is surjective. Since $mathbb N^2$ is countable, and $mathbb R$ is uncountable, a simple diagonalization argument can be made to show that the mapping cannot be surjective.



In particular, the argument would go like so:




  1. Let $F$ be the mapping you construct going from $mathbb N^2$ to $[0,1]$. That is, $F(m,n)$ is the number obtained by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.

  2. Let $f:mathbb Ntomathbb N^2$ be a bijective function. (we know such a function exists, and it doesn't really matter which one we take) and let $f_1,f_2$ be its components, i.e. $f(n)=(f_1(n), f_2(n))$.

  3. Denote the digits of $F(f(n))$ as $a_i^{(n)}$, that is, $F(f(n)) = 0.a_1^{(n)}a_2^{(n)}a_3^{(n)}dots$

  4. Let $$b_i=begin{cases}1 & text{if } a_i^{(i)} = 0\ 0& text{if } a_i^{(i)} neq 0end{cases}$$

  5. Let $b=0.b_1b_2b_3dots$. Clearly, for all $ninmathbb N$, we see that $F(f(n))neq b$ because the $n$-th digit of $F(f(n))$ is not the same as the $n$-th digit of $b$.

  6. From $5$, it follows that the number $b$ is not in the domain of $Fcirc f$.

  7. Because $f$ is bijective, we conclude that $b$ is not in the domain of $F$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clean re-wording. The diagonalization argument will fail when you can show that the number is just further down the list, as in this case
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:20










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin The diagonalization argument can show that any mapping from a countable set to $mathbb R$ cannot be surjective. It will not fail. It is possible to construct a number that is not in your mapping.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:24










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin: how can you draw any conclusion about a diagonalization argument without even seeing it ? Or you need to prove that no such argument can be written.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:30










  • $begingroup$
    Following this line of reasoning, the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself.
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:32






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @MrMartin Happy to help. Remember to accept the answer if it is what you needed. And a piece of general advice: avoid giving sweeping statements like "the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself. " before trying to prove them. It makes you sound like you get an answer and immediatelly assume it is wrong. The aggressive tone may not go down well with everyone.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:40
















5












$begingroup$

You basically present a mapping from $mathbb N^2$ to $mathbb R$ and ask if the mapping is surjective. Since $mathbb N^2$ is countable, and $mathbb R$ is uncountable, a simple diagonalization argument can be made to show that the mapping cannot be surjective.



In particular, the argument would go like so:




  1. Let $F$ be the mapping you construct going from $mathbb N^2$ to $[0,1]$. That is, $F(m,n)$ is the number obtained by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.

  2. Let $f:mathbb Ntomathbb N^2$ be a bijective function. (we know such a function exists, and it doesn't really matter which one we take) and let $f_1,f_2$ be its components, i.e. $f(n)=(f_1(n), f_2(n))$.

  3. Denote the digits of $F(f(n))$ as $a_i^{(n)}$, that is, $F(f(n)) = 0.a_1^{(n)}a_2^{(n)}a_3^{(n)}dots$

  4. Let $$b_i=begin{cases}1 & text{if } a_i^{(i)} = 0\ 0& text{if } a_i^{(i)} neq 0end{cases}$$

  5. Let $b=0.b_1b_2b_3dots$. Clearly, for all $ninmathbb N$, we see that $F(f(n))neq b$ because the $n$-th digit of $F(f(n))$ is not the same as the $n$-th digit of $b$.

  6. From $5$, it follows that the number $b$ is not in the domain of $Fcirc f$.

  7. Because $f$ is bijective, we conclude that $b$ is not in the domain of $F$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clean re-wording. The diagonalization argument will fail when you can show that the number is just further down the list, as in this case
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:20










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin The diagonalization argument can show that any mapping from a countable set to $mathbb R$ cannot be surjective. It will not fail. It is possible to construct a number that is not in your mapping.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:24










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin: how can you draw any conclusion about a diagonalization argument without even seeing it ? Or you need to prove that no such argument can be written.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:30










  • $begingroup$
    Following this line of reasoning, the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself.
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:32






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @MrMartin Happy to help. Remember to accept the answer if it is what you needed. And a piece of general advice: avoid giving sweeping statements like "the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself. " before trying to prove them. It makes you sound like you get an answer and immediatelly assume it is wrong. The aggressive tone may not go down well with everyone.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:40














5












5








5





$begingroup$

You basically present a mapping from $mathbb N^2$ to $mathbb R$ and ask if the mapping is surjective. Since $mathbb N^2$ is countable, and $mathbb R$ is uncountable, a simple diagonalization argument can be made to show that the mapping cannot be surjective.



In particular, the argument would go like so:




  1. Let $F$ be the mapping you construct going from $mathbb N^2$ to $[0,1]$. That is, $F(m,n)$ is the number obtained by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.

  2. Let $f:mathbb Ntomathbb N^2$ be a bijective function. (we know such a function exists, and it doesn't really matter which one we take) and let $f_1,f_2$ be its components, i.e. $f(n)=(f_1(n), f_2(n))$.

  3. Denote the digits of $F(f(n))$ as $a_i^{(n)}$, that is, $F(f(n)) = 0.a_1^{(n)}a_2^{(n)}a_3^{(n)}dots$

  4. Let $$b_i=begin{cases}1 & text{if } a_i^{(i)} = 0\ 0& text{if } a_i^{(i)} neq 0end{cases}$$

  5. Let $b=0.b_1b_2b_3dots$. Clearly, for all $ninmathbb N$, we see that $F(f(n))neq b$ because the $n$-th digit of $F(f(n))$ is not the same as the $n$-th digit of $b$.

  6. From $5$, it follows that the number $b$ is not in the domain of $Fcirc f$.

  7. Because $f$ is bijective, we conclude that $b$ is not in the domain of $F$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You basically present a mapping from $mathbb N^2$ to $mathbb R$ and ask if the mapping is surjective. Since $mathbb N^2$ is countable, and $mathbb R$ is uncountable, a simple diagonalization argument can be made to show that the mapping cannot be surjective.



In particular, the argument would go like so:




  1. Let $F$ be the mapping you construct going from $mathbb N^2$ to $[0,1]$. That is, $F(m,n)$ is the number obtained by taking with the $m$th digit of $pi$, and then taking every $n$th digit.

  2. Let $f:mathbb Ntomathbb N^2$ be a bijective function. (we know such a function exists, and it doesn't really matter which one we take) and let $f_1,f_2$ be its components, i.e. $f(n)=(f_1(n), f_2(n))$.

  3. Denote the digits of $F(f(n))$ as $a_i^{(n)}$, that is, $F(f(n)) = 0.a_1^{(n)}a_2^{(n)}a_3^{(n)}dots$

  4. Let $$b_i=begin{cases}1 & text{if } a_i^{(i)} = 0\ 0& text{if } a_i^{(i)} neq 0end{cases}$$

  5. Let $b=0.b_1b_2b_3dots$. Clearly, for all $ninmathbb N$, we see that $F(f(n))neq b$ because the $n$-th digit of $F(f(n))$ is not the same as the $n$-th digit of $b$.

  6. From $5$, it follows that the number $b$ is not in the domain of $Fcirc f$.

  7. Because $f$ is bijective, we conclude that $b$ is not in the domain of $F$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 12 '18 at 9:37

























answered Dec 12 '18 at 9:05









5xum5xum

91.8k394161




91.8k394161












  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clean re-wording. The diagonalization argument will fail when you can show that the number is just further down the list, as in this case
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:20










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin The diagonalization argument can show that any mapping from a countable set to $mathbb R$ cannot be surjective. It will not fail. It is possible to construct a number that is not in your mapping.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:24










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin: how can you draw any conclusion about a diagonalization argument without even seeing it ? Or you need to prove that no such argument can be written.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:30










  • $begingroup$
    Following this line of reasoning, the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself.
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:32






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @MrMartin Happy to help. Remember to accept the answer if it is what you needed. And a piece of general advice: avoid giving sweeping statements like "the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself. " before trying to prove them. It makes you sound like you get an answer and immediatelly assume it is wrong. The aggressive tone may not go down well with everyone.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:40


















  • $begingroup$
    Thank you for the clean re-wording. The diagonalization argument will fail when you can show that the number is just further down the list, as in this case
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:20










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin The diagonalization argument can show that any mapping from a countable set to $mathbb R$ cannot be surjective. It will not fail. It is possible to construct a number that is not in your mapping.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:24










  • $begingroup$
    @MrMartin: how can you draw any conclusion about a diagonalization argument without even seeing it ? Or you need to prove that no such argument can be written.
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:30










  • $begingroup$
    Following this line of reasoning, the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself.
    $endgroup$
    – MrMartin
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:32






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @MrMartin Happy to help. Remember to accept the answer if it is what you needed. And a piece of general advice: avoid giving sweeping statements like "the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself. " before trying to prove them. It makes you sound like you get an answer and immediatelly assume it is wrong. The aggressive tone may not go down well with everyone.
    $endgroup$
    – 5xum
    Dec 12 '18 at 9:40
















$begingroup$
Thank you for the clean re-wording. The diagonalization argument will fail when you can show that the number is just further down the list, as in this case
$endgroup$
– MrMartin
Dec 12 '18 at 9:20




$begingroup$
Thank you for the clean re-wording. The diagonalization argument will fail when you can show that the number is just further down the list, as in this case
$endgroup$
– MrMartin
Dec 12 '18 at 9:20












$begingroup$
@MrMartin The diagonalization argument can show that any mapping from a countable set to $mathbb R$ cannot be surjective. It will not fail. It is possible to construct a number that is not in your mapping.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 12 '18 at 9:24




$begingroup$
@MrMartin The diagonalization argument can show that any mapping from a countable set to $mathbb R$ cannot be surjective. It will not fail. It is possible to construct a number that is not in your mapping.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 12 '18 at 9:24












$begingroup$
@MrMartin: how can you draw any conclusion about a diagonalization argument without even seeing it ? Or you need to prove that no such argument can be written.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Dec 12 '18 at 9:30




$begingroup$
@MrMartin: how can you draw any conclusion about a diagonalization argument without even seeing it ? Or you need to prove that no such argument can be written.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Dec 12 '18 at 9:30












$begingroup$
Following this line of reasoning, the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself.
$endgroup$
– MrMartin
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32




$begingroup$
Following this line of reasoning, the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself.
$endgroup$
– MrMartin
Dec 12 '18 at 9:32




3




3




$begingroup$
@MrMartin Happy to help. Remember to accept the answer if it is what you needed. And a piece of general advice: avoid giving sweeping statements like "the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself. " before trying to prove them. It makes you sound like you get an answer and immediatelly assume it is wrong. The aggressive tone may not go down well with everyone.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 12 '18 at 9:40




$begingroup$
@MrMartin Happy to help. Remember to accept the answer if it is what you needed. And a piece of general advice: avoid giving sweeping statements like "the diagonalization argument could also be applied to show that the cardinality of $mathbb R$ is greater than itself. " before trying to prove them. It makes you sound like you get an answer and immediatelly assume it is wrong. The aggressive tone may not go down well with everyone.
$endgroup$
– 5xum
Dec 12 '18 at 9:40


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3036431%2fdoes-pi-contain-every-real%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

Image
3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
Read more

Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

Image
up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
Read more

Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

Image
0 I want to add Tabulator js to my java project. I added tabulator.min.js, tabulator.min.css to resources folder. After that added to my html page these dependencies as recommending in readme.md. <link rel="stylesheet" th:href="@{/css/tabulator.min.css}"> <script type="text/javascript" th:src="@{/js/tabulator.min.js}"></script> Now my tables view all elements, that I have in the html page, but not correct. In the documentation of Tabulator is example how to create header and table, var table = new Tabulator("#example-table", { columns:[ {title:"Name", field:"name", sorter:"string", width:200, editor:true}, {title:"Age", field:"age", sorter:"
Read more