Logic and Language

Logic and Language

Copyright © James R Meyer 2012 - 2018 www.jamesrmeyer.com

This page is keyboard accessible:

• Use**Tab**, **Shift + Tab **keys to traverse the main menu. To enter a sub-menu use the **Right Arrow** key. To leave a sub-menu use the **Left Arrow** or the **Escape** key.

• The**Enter** or the **Space** key opens the active menu item.

• To skip the menu and move to the main content, press**Tab** after the page loads to reveal a skip button.

• To get back to the top of the page anytime, press the**Home** key.

• For more information, click here: Accessibility Close this tip.

• Use

• The

• To skip the menu and move to the main content, press

• To get back to the top of the page anytime, press the

• For more information, click here: Accessibility Close this tip.

Note: Full functionality of this web page requires JavaScript to be enabled in your browser.

A well-known professor claimed that there was no possibility that the set **A** as in the *Courant-Robbins contradiction* and *Lebesgue Measure* could be the entire unit interval 0 to 1. (Footnote: See the appendix below *Defining a set over the interval 0 to 1* for a brief synopsis.) This is the argument he used:

We define a list (Footnote: See One-to-one correspondences.) of rational numbers by taking a pre-existing list of rationals and we define that if there is a rational in the list that is close to one given specific irrational number, then that rational is pushed further down the list. The closer that rational is to that irrational number, the further it is pushed down the list. More formally the definition is:

Take any arbitrary irrational *r* where 0 < *r* < 1. Given that *a*_{1}, *a*_{2}, *a*_{3}, … is an enumeration of the rationals in [0,1] (the interval 0 to 1, including 0 and 1), we create a new enumeration, *b*_{1}, *b*_{2}, *b*_{3}, … where for all *n*, *b _{n}* is the first

While this definition is fairly informal, there is no difficulty in making it more formal, viz:

Given any arbitrary irrational r where 0 < *r* < 1, and any arbitrary enumeration *a*_{1}, *a*_{2}, *a*_{3}, … of the reals over [0,1], a new enumeration *b*_{1}, *b*_{2}, *b*_{3}, … is defined by:

∀*n*, ∃*i* (*b _{n} = a_{i}* )

if and only if

∀*m, m < n, b _{m} ≠ a_{i}* ∧ ¬[

The professor then continued:

When we combine the definition of this list with the definition of decreasing intervals ^{1}⁄_{10,}, ^{1}⁄_{100,} ^{1}⁄_{1000,} … ^{1}⁄_{10}^{n}, … we have a new definition.

This defines a set **A***. It is impossible for *r* to be in the set **A***. Therefore *r* is not in the set **A*** but it is an single point, therefore there cannot be an interval to the right or left of that point that is an open interval with a rational as its endpoint, since the endpoint would have to be *r*, and *r* is irrational.

Well, there is an obvious fallacy in the above - you cannot prove a generalization from a finite number of instances, never mind a single instance.

But besides that, the argument throws up more problems than it solves. While it shows that, while you can define a list of rationals so that it will exclude given irrational numbers, it also shows that every such excluded irrational is associated with an infinite sequence of rational numbers. Furthermore, if there is more than one such excluded irrational, it is clear that each such excluded irrational:

- is an single point and
- is associated with its own unique infinite sequence of rational numbers.

And that means that if there could be infinitely many such excluded irrational numbers, then that infinity could not in any sense be a “bigger” infinity than that of the rational numbers.

But, according to conventional Lebesgue measure theory, the set of all these single points not in the set A is a set that has a measure of at least ** ^{8}⁄_{9}**, but any infinite set of single points that has a finite definition (Footnote: e.g., the rational numbers, the square roots of prime numbers) has a measure of zero.

Note that the professor’s definition tells us nothing more about membership of his new set **A** other than it is the original set **A** less the single irrational *r* - it tells us nothing about other members of the set **A**.

Footnotes:

First, definitions of an open and a closed interval:

An ** open interval **is an interval that does not include the endpoints that define that interval (for example the open interval whose endpoints are

A * closed interval* is an interval whose endpoints are included in the interval.

Now, define a set **A** in terms of ever decreasing intervals that are associated with the list:

We start with the closed interval between 0 and 1. Now take a suitable list of the rational numbers between 0 and 1 (see below). Then, going through this list of rational numbers, for the first rational we define an * open* interval

Given this definition, either the set A is the entire interval between 0 and 1, or else there are irrational single points that remain in the interval 0 to 1. Either way, since single points do not have any length, the set A has a total measure of 1. But Lebesgue measure theory claims that the measure of the set A must be less than ** ^{1}⁄_{9}**. For more on this, see Lebesgue Measure Theory. But some people do not like this result and try to find arguments against it, such as the one described on this page.

Some people have suggested that they can circumvent the contradiction by using a list (see also One-to-one correspondences and Listing the rationals) of the rationals that are defined in terms of various conditional requirements, which render the enumeration and the sequence of intervals interdependent. Rather than trying to construct a set of rules as to which enumerations are applicable, all that is required is one specific enumeration. We can define that the set **A** is to be given by one specific enumeration using the pattern of rationals:

^{1}⁄_{2} |
^{1}⁄_{3} |
^{1}⁄_{4} |
^{1}⁄_{5} |
^{1}⁄_{6} |
… |

^{2}⁄_{3} |
^{2}⁄_{4} |
^{2}⁄_{5} |
^{2}⁄_{6} |
… | |

^{3}⁄_{4} |
^{3}⁄_{5} |
^{3}⁄_{6} |
… | ||

^{4}⁄_{5} |
^{4}⁄_{6} |
… | |||

^{5}⁄_{6} |
… |

This gives a list that begins as ^{1}⁄_{2, }^{1}⁄_{3,}^{2}⁄_{3,}^{1}⁄_{4,}^{3}⁄_{4,}^{2}⁄_{4,}^{1}⁄_{5,}^{2}⁄_{5,}^{3}⁄_{5,}^{4}⁄_{5,}^{1}⁄_{6,}^{2}⁄_{6,}^{3}⁄_{6,}^{4}⁄_{6,}** ^{5}⁄_{6,}**… Note that this gives duplicates like

The enumeration can be represented by an algorithm as follows, where the calculation of the *n*^{th} rational does not require the calculation of any of the rationals prior to *n* in the enumeration:

- Let
*t*= 0 - If √ is a Natural number, then:
*m*= (−1 + √ )/2 and the*n*^{th}rational is (*m*−*t*)/(*m*+ 1)- Otherwise let
*t*=*t*+ 1 and repeat from step 2.

This can easily be made into a program as has been done here:

Diverse opinions and criticisms are welcome, but messages that are frivolous, irrelevant or devoid of logical basis will be blocked. Difficulties in understanding the site content are usually best addressed by contacting me by e-mail. Note: you will be asked to provide an e-mail address - any address will do, it does not require verification. Your e-mail will only be used to notify you of replies to your comments - it will never be used for any other purpose and will not be displayed. If you cannot see any comments below, see Why isn’t the comment box loading?.

How you can tell if someone is a crackpot

A review of Buldt’s *The Scope of Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem*

There is now a new page Halbach and Zhang’s *Yablo without Gödel* which analyzes the illogical assumptions used by Halbach and Zhang.

I found that making, adding or deleting footnotes in the traditional manner proved to be a major pain. So I developed a different system for footnotes which makes inserting or changing footnotes a doddle. You can check it out at Easy Footnotes for Web Pages (Accessibility friendly).

I have now added a new section to my paper on Russell O’Connor’s claim of a computer verified incompleteness proof. This shows that the flaw in the proof arises from a reliance on definitions that include unacceptable assumptions - assumptions that are not actually checked by the computer code. See also the new page Representability.

13 Jan 2017 Ned Block’s Blockhead

8 Apr 2016 Are we alone in the Universe?

13 May 2015 Good Math, Bad Math?

31 Mar 2015 Cranks and Crackpots

16th Mar 2015 Bishops Dancing with Pixies?

For convenience, there are now two pages on this site with links to various material relating to Gödel and the Incompleteness Theorem

– a page with general links:

– and a page relating specifically to the Gödel mind-machine debate:

All pages on this website are printer friendly, and will print the main content in a convenient format. Note that the margins are set by your browser print settings.

Note: for some browsers JavaScript must be enabled for this to operate correctly.

Comments on this site are welcome, please see the comment section.

Please note that this web site, like any other is a collection of various statements. Not all of this web site is intended to be factual. Some of it is personal opinion or interpretation.

If you prefer to ask me directly about the material on this site, please send me an e-mail with your query, and I will attempt to reply promptly.

Feedback about site design would also be appreciated so that I can improve the site.

Copyright © James R Meyer 2012 - 2018

www.jamesrmeyer.com