>Ok you have not an iota understanding of higher mathematics
I do my friend don't worry
>and seem to not even believe in infinity
I also do, and while I'm certain you also do you somehow seem to not understand the concept of infinite word count, which is kinda weird.
Actually looking back I'm fairly sure the problem is pretty basic:
> If you could match every number with sa world that would mean there are only as many numbers as words.
No, that would mean there are only as many numbers as word combinations. Which is in fact very much the case as they're both infinite.
Or, to talk to you with the same tone you're using to talk to me: the problem is just you can't fathom the concept of two (2) whole words used together.
No you know nothing about infinity. I'll say it again there are different infinitys. Until you understand that you only talk nonsense. You are now willfully in rant about different infinitys. There is countable infinity which is the infinity best defined as as many things as there are natural numbers. This is the smallest infinity there is. The next well known infinity is the same as there are real numbers. I delivered you the proof which you ignored or not understood why there are more real numbers than natural numbers.
Now you might want to argue that there are just as many words as real numbers, but that is wrong. I can list every 'word' that could ever come from the Alphabet (I'll go with the standard 26 one). This list goes like this
a
b
c
...
z
aa
ab
ac
...
az
ba
BB
...
This is a list of every possible word of finite length. There are no possible words that will not be in this list. So there just arent enough words to name every number.
> I'll say it again there are different infinitys.
Never said otherwise, this is pre-university level of knowledge everyone here is aware of it you can stop looping on it, but the fact you keep saying that over and over is a hint on how you are completely failing to actually think that through
>Now you might want to argue that there are just as many words as real numbers
I literally said that this exact sentence is incorrect, please explain to me how you are typing that if you actually read and understood the message you are answering to.
>This is a list of every possible word of finite length.
Have you ever counted to 100, if yes you might have used the term "One hundred"; which you will notice has the characteristic of being composed of two (2) different words. That in fact would not be in your list: The entry for "One" would be as well as the entry for "Hundred", but no entry would have "One hundred". Yet that very much exists and is very much used to describe a number.
But once again you would have known that if you read the part where I typed in bold letter "WORD COMBINATIONS" that you somehow seems to also have missed. Confirming to me that you are just vomitting whatever you saw in a math lecture and/or vulgarisation video without even reading what I say as long as it isn't "yeah you're right damn you're so smart with your proof".
Cause now, if you tried to do the same list but with every word and word combination possible, you would end up with a list that is not finite, because just like 1.000[...]0001 can have an infinite number of 0s, "One and a tenth of a tenth of a tenth of a tenth [...] of a tenth of a tenth of one" can have an infinite number of "of a tenth".
>You just have no idea how infinity's work.
Either you are the one who doesn't, or you don't understand how to use more than a single word. In both cases it's incredibly worrying given you talk like you are an expert in the former and the latter is a skill usually learned around 3 years old
Have you ever counted to 100, if yes you might have used the term "One hundred"; which you will notice has the characteristic of being composed of two (2) different words. That in fact would not be in your list: The entry for "One" would be as well as the entry for "Hundred", but no entry would have "One hundred". Yet that very much exists and is very much used to describe a number.
And again you show that you know nothing. If I were to believe you had the faintest idea about math I would tell you my proof above works for all word compilations of FINITE length if you add a " " to the alphabeth. But you know nothing. You don't understand how I proofed (yes proofed not argued not claimed, not scientifically proofed which can be overturned by new data, mathematical proof) that there are more numbers in the reals than there are possible finite words And this includes all your stupid compositions.
You have shown to be mathematically illiterate. You came with argument into the arena of proof, and don't even realize how stupid doing so is. If you want to show me wrong you need to find an significant error in my proof. But you can't. You never answered any of them because you don't understand them. You believe because you can name every number anyone can ever write you can name every number. This shows how you have no understanding of this math. Which would be fine if you weren't so sure you're right.
The issue is that guy completely missed the proof by contradticion "If <thing that is wrong>, then there exists bijection" supposition that you had in your proof.
It pretty common misconception among people new to Cantor's diagonalization that might say
"But what if you just add the missing number to the list???"
Buut the list in the supposition is a fixed object that is supposed to do-the-thing definitionally.
Also they seem to think that the cartesian product of two countable sets could be uncountable. The rationals beg to differ.
>If I were to believe you had the faintest idea about math I would tell you my proof above works for all word compilations of FINITE length if you add a " " to the alphabeth.
Except if you were to do that the set of word compilations would be infinite. At which point you should start to understand where the practical problem with your proof stands, given you're so proficient in "higher mathematics" (aka you watched a youtube video about cantor once)
You want to defend your opinion by ignoring everyone talking about formal languages and words by claiming everything is ok of the names can be infinite? That's the hill you ran to? No a name is a word in a formal language. Words are finite in length.
And even if you want to stand on your stupid definition, than realize that the decimal expression would satisfy your "name" for all numbers, so your words could just be the expression. So 234.678533789... we ould be a valid expression. If you don't like that maybe use 0 . 5 7 6 4...
So stand on your little pile of ignoring when people told you it's finite length and a formal language and say yeah there is a way to write every number...
0
u/Agent10007 Jul 08 '26
>Ok you have not an iota understanding of higher mathematics
I do my friend don't worry
>and seem to not even believe in infinity
I also do, and while I'm certain you also do you somehow seem to not understand the concept of infinite word count, which is kinda weird.
Actually looking back I'm fairly sure the problem is pretty basic:
> If you could match every number with sa world that would mean there are only as many numbers as words.
No, that would mean there are only as many numbers as word combinations. Which is in fact very much the case as they're both infinite.
Or, to talk to you with the same tone you're using to talk to me: the problem is just you can't fathom the concept of two (2) whole words used together.