Re: I beg you, PLEASE prove that 0.123456789101112131415 is IRRATIONAL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Dear Cypher Punks,
 >
 >I BEG YOU TO HELP ME!!!
 >
 >Is it possible to prove that number 0.1234567891011121314151617181920...
 >iz irrational? 
 
Most definately. All you need to do is prove that the set of this number is
uncountable, ergo is irrational. If you have friend who have done math in real
analysis they can explain more.

>
 >Or may be it is rational?
 >
 >Also, another question for math geniuses here: 
 >
 >Is it REALLY true that there are real numbers that cannot be generated
 >by any algorithm? Some guy said that since the set of algorithms is
 >countable, but the set of real numbers is more than countable, there 
 >must be some numbers for which there is no algorithms that generate them.
 
If you show me an algorythm that calculates the real number TT (=3.14.....)
I'll give you a Nobel Prize personally!

>
 >But I still do not believe him.
 >
 >Also, is it true that the sequence of digits in e is random because the ONLY
way to get to the
 >p'th digit is to calculate the p-1'st digits?
 >
Exactly! This is called recursive definition. To get the p-th set in the
sequence you need to find p-1 first...

>Also, is it the correct definition of a real number: 
 >
 >``A real number is the class of numbers which can represent the length of
 >an arbitrary line.''
 
Well, that is not entirely true... The length of any arbitrary line can be any
number, rational, natural, etc. Real numbers are the numbers that defy all
other categorization (they are not rational, irrational, natural, etc.) They
are complex and despite any instinctual perception, there are a lot of them!
 
I don't know if these maed a lot of sense but all of these questions are
answered in a good Elementary Real Analysis book.

>
 >
 >I AM REAL DESPERATE FOR YOUR ASS ISTANCE.

Sincerely,

Gabe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.5

iQEVAgUBMuJmYqr5aWnB1HshAQH2bwf+O/C0vRosJAclWr9OhYufFtSYnGohHjnA
hwbcb6wftvrRES4HyMu9GfCYZanZ37TI4erblofctiJh7RVgFmvJxK0VDbaSth8J
Ns0u/c86dw6qSeE8XG+1LBQ9hH8eXJ4Mojnohea4L9IesjfqugZwh6+g/1BXngco
wpOnhixj9Xxoh8Bu/N01rNtaCOcDQPziCYWg3iKTIJ0ySP0zZBPoamVq7OYAhXzY
+sn5lABFZ81/VQf0Y/7drWnZhBDpJXq7xtbo4NZGkDbQ6ifNaH9AlF9+9vLJn6AS
osG5SsS2TmeJLmpi3BxC0k1cNHGHI7+DGazRVMrtCZFFMeeh5RtRgQ==
=ZAZJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 ---------------------------------------------------
|    Gabor K. Tozser     |  1500 St. Olaf Ave.      |
|     St. Olaf College   |  Northfield, MN 55057    |
 ---------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


In <199701191820.MAA24006@nic.stolaf.edu>, on 01/19/97 at 02:20 PM,
   Sir Robin of Locksley <tozser@stolaf.edu> said:


> >Also, is it true that the sequence of digits in e is random because the ONLY way to get
>to the
> >p'th digit is to calculate the p-1'st digits?
> >
>Exactly! This is called recursive definition. To get the p-th set in the
>sequence you need to find p-1 first...

This still would not make the digits random since knowing p-1 one can
calculate p.

In a random series of digits knowing p-1 should not have any effect on the
probability of the value of p.

With e if you know the value of p-1 is 7 then you can calculate the value of p and know if
p is 3 or not. In a random series knowing that p-1 is 7 there should be an equal
probability of p being 3 or any other number.

- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
Geiger Consulting    WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!!
Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice

Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts
Get Work Place Shell for Windows!!
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
                          
Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info
- -----------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: Walk through doors, don't crawl through Windows.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMuKM/49Co1n+aLhhAQH2TwP+OovMe7WFhHw6HvSJ+lmXGhpavofpBjCj
9lUdls3Q4L/0Sw8P3GjhaZ7GaKqDlm6ad61WGb7kRFDcurabGT41Imf8S4RWDSfj
rDuZFEO1mBeUviJZucLevjcjrVRuCmj54DJIx6PrYtHikFmvdVJqwMzF9FfPeFbM
9w0Qn+Xhv50=
=bcQS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997 12:20:45 -0600, Sir Robin of Locksley wrote:

    >Is it possible to prove that number 0.1234567891011121314151617181920...
    >iz irrational? 

   Most definately. All you need to do is prove that the set of this number is
   uncountable, ergo is irrational. If you have friend who have done math in real
   analysis they can explain more.

This makes no sense at all.  Presumably "the set of this number" means
the cardinality of the set {1, 2, 3, ...} which is quite obviously
countable!  The definition of countable is that it can be put in one
to one correspondence with exactly this set!

The number is, nevertheless, irrational.  A rational number is one
that can be written as a ratio of two integers (and infinity is _not_
an integer...or any kind of number, for that matter.  Else there would
be no irrational numbers).  Any rational number will end with a
repeating series of digits (which may be 0s, of course).  This number
clearly has no such repeating sequence.

    >Is it REALLY true that there are real numbers that cannot be generated
    >by any algorithm? Some guy said that since the set of algorithms is
    >countable, but the set of real numbers is more than countable, there 
    >must be some numbers for which there is no algorithms that generate them.

   If you show me an algorythm that calculates the real number TT (=3.14.....)
   I'll give you a Nobel Prize personally!

Some things are too easy.  How about pi = 4(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + ...)
Evaluate.

The prize should probably go to Liebniz, though...

To answer the original question, yes, there are numbers (the vast
majority of numbers, in fact) which cannot be calculated by an
algorithm.  The computable numbers (those which can be generated
algorithmically) are countable (because a universal Turing machine can
emulate any other Turing machine given the appropriate input
(program), you can give each possible algorithm a number corresponding
to the program that implements it.  Such numbers are integers, hence
countable, so the number of algorithms is countable.  Since the real
numbers are not countable, it's obvious that there are real numbers
which are not computable.)

    >But I still do not believe him.
    >
    >Also, is it true that the sequence of digits in e is random because the ONLY
   way to get to the
    >p'th digit is to calculate the p-1'st digits?
    >
   Exactly! This is called recursive definition. To get the p-th set in the
   sequence you need to find p-1 first...

The sequence of digits in e is not random!  You mean the distribution
of digits looks random (is it?).  e is certainly computable, which
implies there is an algorithm that generates successive digits of e
given inputs of 0, 1, 2, 3, ...  I have no idea whether every such
algorithm must generate all preceding digits in doing so.

   >Also, is it the correct definition of a real number: 
    >
    >``A real number is the class of numbers which can represent the length of
    >an arbitrary line.''

   Well, that is not entirely true... The length of any arbitrary line can be any
   number, rational, natural, etc. Real numbers are the numbers that defy all
   other categorization (they are not rational, irrational, natural, etc.) They
   are complex and despite any instinctual perception, there are a lot of them!

No, the original definition is perfectly good.  Natural numbers are
rational, and rational numbers are real numbers.  Irrational numbers
are also real numbers.  The last sentence is correct, though -- real
numbers are complex numbers (although that's not what you meant, I
think) and there are a lot of them (an infinite number, of course, but
a "bigger" infinity than the countable sets of naturals or rationals).

   -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
   Version: 4.5

What's version 4.5?

-- 
Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz>       ---         PGPmail preferred

	   PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers
    fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33  C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
November, n.:
	The eleventh twelfth of a weariness.
		-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"