Logic and Language
Load the menuLoad the menu


Copyright   James R Meyer    2012 - 2020 https://www.jamesrmeyer.com

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

Sums of infinitely many fractions: 2

A favorite notion held dear by Platonists is the notion of an ‘infinite decimal expansion’. For a fraction, the decimal representation of the fraction is simply a fraction with 10, 100, 1000, 10000, etc as the denominator (the denominator is the number under the line in a fraction), so that we can have, for example 910, 45100, 2301000, 12310000, etc. But it would be a mistake is to think that there is such a thing as a fraction with a limitlessly large denominator.

 

Of course, when trying to calculate the value of the square root of 2 (the value that, when multiplied by itself gives the value of 2) we can continue to generate more and more fractions (or decimal places), viz.

1.4
1.41,
1.414,
1.4142,
1.41421,


1.4142135623730950488016887242097,

This process of generating more and more decimal places can be continued indefinitely. There is no limit to the number of times you can add on an extra digit.

 

Based on this simple fact a crucial assumption was made, an assumption which is an inherently Platonist assumption. That assumption is that the irrational number is a thing that actually consists of a more than a finite number of decimal digits. For the Platonist, the value of the square root of 2 is actually equal to:

 

1 plus the ‘fraction’  
414213562 … to more than a finite number of digits
1000000000 … to more than a finite number of digits

 

When confronted with this, the Platonist will reply that that is not what they mean by an ‘infinite decimal expansion’, and that what they really mean is the sum of a limitless quantity of fractions that start off as:

 

410 + 1100 + 41000 + 210000 + 1100000 + 31000000 + 510000000 + 6100000000 + 21000000000 + …

 

and that there are limitlessly many such fractions that continue to get smaller and smaller, all added together.

 

But this doesn’t solve the problem of a limitlessly large denominator; it is simply evading the problem by a rewording rather than a different definition. Each fraction in this ‘sum’ is a definite size and its denominator is 110 of the previous one. But if this is a limitless ‘sum’ that can actually ‘exist’, then there must actually be more than a finite quantity of fractions, each one of a definite size and greater than zero, all added together. From this arises a contradiction:

 

Every fraction is related to every other fraction in the ‘sum’, since the value of its denominator must be the value of the denominator of the first fraction in the sum, which is 10, multiplied by 10 a definite number of times. So, if there could be more than a finite number of these fractions, then there would be some fraction that was not related to any of the other fractions by any finite multiple of ten. But that is impossible, since every such fraction has to be related to every other fraction by some finite multiple of 10.

 

At this point, the Platonist will resort to virtual hand-waving, and will say something like:

 

But you have presumed that every fraction is a finite amount away from the first fraction. But some of the fractions will be an infinite amount away from the first fraction, and so your argument doesn’t apply.

 

Unfortunately for the Platonist, this attempt to solve the contradiction doesn’t work. Every one of the fractions has to have a denominator of a definite size, that is, the denominator must be a 1 followed by a definite number of zeros. The alternative is that there are fractions in this infinite sum that do not have a definite value, and that their denominator is 1 followed by an infinite number of zeros – which contradicts the original definition.

 

Unlike the notion of the sum of an infinite quantity of ever decreasing fractions, a concept that does have a clear meaning is the limit of all the finite sums that can be got from a collection of fractions. For instance, given a collection of fractions that is:

 

410 , 1100 , 41000 , 210000 , 1100000 , 31000000 , 510000000 , 6100000000 , 21000000000

 

you can have sums such as:

 

410 + 1100

 

410 + 1100 + 41000

 

410 + 1100 + 41000 + 210000 + 1100000

 

410 + 1100 + 41000 + 6100000000 + 21000000000

 

410 + 41000 + 210000 + 1100000 + 510000000 + 21000000000

 

410 + 1100 + 41000 + 210000 + 1100000 + 31000000 + 510000000

 

410 + 1100 + 41000 + 210000 + 1100000 + 31000000 + 510000000 + 6100000000

 

410 + 1100 + 41000 + 210000 + 1100000 + 31000000 + 510000000 + 6100000000 + 21000000000

 

All of these sums are finite. None of them exceed a certain value. None of them exceed the value 0.414213562. That value is the limiting value for finite sums of fractions taken from the finite collection:

 

410 , 1100 , 41000 , 210000 , 1100000 , 31000000 , 510000000 , 6100000000 , 21000000000

 

And if you have more fractions to choose from, you will have many more different finite sums of fractions. The above was a finite collection of fractions from which there can only be a finite number of different sums. But you can also have a concept of a limiting value for all the finite sums that can be got from a limitlessly large collection of fractions. In this case, there are a limitless amount of such sums – but the sums are still all finite. Since all these finite sums are derived from a concept of a collection of fractions that has limitlessly many fractions, then, in order to be able to be able to determine if there is a limit which none of these finite sums can exceed, there must first of all be a way of expressing that concept of a collection of limitlessly many fractions in a finite way, using a finite combination of symbols. Since the concept involves a limitless amount of such fractions, the only way to express that concept is by way of a definition. And similarly, once you have that finite definition, you may be able to use that finite definition to define a limiting value. And that limiting value will be a value that no finite sum of fractions, taken from the overall collection that is given by a definition, can exceed. None of this is anything new; most of the methods of calculating the limits for various series of fractions were known over a hundred and fifty years ago.

 

Of course, we can have numbers which are finite decimal expansions, such as

3.1416, and
3.14159265359, and
3.14159265358979323846, and
3.14159265358979323846264338328, and 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399,

and so on, which are all numbers that are close to the number Pi, relative to the number 3. And a number has been calculated to billions of digits and this is also closer to the number Pi, relative to the number 3.14159265358979323846. But, in the same way as it is a mistake to think of a ‘large’ number as being close to infinity, it is a mistake to think that the number 3.141592653 is close in some absolute sense to the value of Pi. It isn’t, since there are still infinitely many real numbers between 3.141592653 and Pi. It is only close in relative terms, in that it is closer to Pi than 3.1416.

 

And more …

For more demonstrations of contradictions arising from the Platonist beliefs in the ‘existence’ of ‘actual’ infinite sets, see The Courant & Robbins contradiction and Sums of infinitely many fractions: 1.

 

You can also see a formal paper on some of the problems of calculating the measure of some sets that are defined in terms of limitlessness, see On Smith-Volterra-Cantor sets and their measure.

 

For more on Platonism see Platonism, The Myths of Platonism, Platonism’s Logical Blunder, Numbers, chairs and unicorns and the posts Moderate Platonism and Descartes’ Platonism.

section divider

Interested in supporting this site?

You can help by sharing the site with others. You can also donate at Go Get Funding: Logic and Language where there are full details.

 

As site owner I reserve the right to keep my comments sections as I deem appropriate. I do not use that right to unfairly censor valid criticism. My reasons for deleting or editing comments do not include deleting a comment because it disagrees with what is on my website. Reasons for exclusion include:
Frivolous, irrelevant comments.
Comments devoid of logical basis.
Derogatory comments.
Long-winded comments.
Comments with excessive number of different points.
Questions about matters that do not relate to the page they post on. Such posts are not comments.
Comments with a substantial amount of mathematical terms not properly formatted will not be published unless a file (such as doc, tex, pdf) is simultaneously emailed to me, and where the mathematical terms are correctly formatted.


Reasons for deleting comments of certain users:
Bulk posting of comments in a short space of time, often on several different pages, and which are not simply part of an ongoing discussion. Multiple anonymous usernames for one person.
Users, who, when shown their point is wrong, immediately claim that they just wrote it wrong and rewrite it again - still erroneously, or else attack something else on my site - erroneously. After the first few instances, further posts are deleted.
Users who make persistent erroneous attacks in a scatter-gun attempt to try to find some error in what I write on this site. After the first few instances, further posts are deleted.


Difficulties in understanding the site content are usually best addressed by contacting me by e-mail.

 

Note: a password enables editing of comments, an email enables notification of replies

HashOver logoBased on HashOver Comment System by Jacob BarkdullHashOver logo

Copyright   James R Meyer   2012 - 2020
https://www.jamesrmeyer.com