ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Chris Liss14d ago
yeah, his was different, but I had to explain it to a high school student, and this was an obvious way to show it. Could also do square root of 2, square root of 2.01, square root of 2.001, cube root of 2, cube root of 2.01, fourth root of 2, fourth root, etc. No way you can match the naturals to it because there are an infinite number of these series you could do, just to get from 1 to 2.
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: 96fae8f506c0…

Replying to: fe8f96d4ba4d…

Replies (1)

YODL14d ago
Without getting too pedantic about it, what you gave was not really a proof. You could use a similar argument to say the rationals are larger than the naturals, when they are in fact not (a surprising discovery the first time it's shown using a constructive proof). The Cantor diagonalization thing is a proof by contradiction, and is a particularly powerful construction that gets used in many places, e.g. proving the halting problem.
0000 sats