Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Cantor Diagonal Proof Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2025 13:35:12 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <7EKdnTIUz9UkpXL6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <45bb7521c3bb68fe5fd47d10ee93a03de17f8d47.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 12:35:12 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c289a35489489d88fb7cd6e10493bedd"; logging-data="840411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZCpG4IZUMVJqlZYADTAA9" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:VJrZrglFHQjj+u55wP0cP1qcyV8= Bytes: 3174 On 2025-04-06 07:15:51 +0000, wij said: > On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 06:43 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 07:27:43 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >>> On 06/04/2025 06:40, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 09:07:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> >>>>> But to be computable, numbers must be computed in a finite number of >>>>> steps. >>>> >>>> “Computable Number: A number which can be computed to any number of >>>> digits desired by a Turing machine.” >>>> >>>> >>> >>> "The “computable” numbers may be described briefly as the real numbers >>> whose expressions as a decimal are calculable by finite means." - Alan >>> Turing. >>> >>> And therefore, to be computable, numbers must be computed in a finite >>> number of steps. >> >> I would say you are quoting Turing out of context. By your> >> (mis)interpretation of his words, even something like 1/3 is an> >> incomputable number, since its “expressions as a decimal are not> >> calculable by finite means”. > > Simply put, repeating decimals are irrational. > https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/RealNumber2-en.txt/download > Repeating decimals are rational. An irrational number has an infinite non-repeating sequence of digits. > All your doubt should be addressed in the file of the link. > >> Turing would not have been so dumb as to have his definition of> >> computability depend on something as trivial as the choice of number >> base. -- Mikko