-8

This question asks for the following deviation from Cantor's proof: Cantor enumerated the positive fractions by the natural numbers n. Mueckenheim enumerates the positive fractions by the integer fractions n/1. Since these integer fractions also have to be enumerated, the number of not enumerated fractions never decreases. But all definable fractions get enumerated.

Is the use of integer fractions a mistake?

According to Mueckenheim's proof of dark numbers countability is fake. I cannot find anything wrong. On the other hand it seems very strange.

Recently Mueckenheim has published in sci.math three proofs of dark numbers. For convenience I simply copy here the first and most convincing one.

Cantor has proved that all positive fractions m/n can be enumerated by all natural numbers k:

k = (m + n - 1)(m + n - 2)/2 + m. (*)

This is tantamount to enumerating the positive fractions by the integer fractions of the first column of the matrix

1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, ...

2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, ...

3/1, 3/2, 3/3, 3/4, ...

4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/4, ...

...

Of course also the integer fractions belong to the fractions to be enumerated. Therefore his approach is tantamount to exchanging X's and O's in the matrix until all O's have disappeared:

X, O, O, O, ...

X, O, O, O, ...

X, O, O, O, ...

X, O, O, O, ...

...

In fact by application of (*) all O's are removed from all visible or definable matrix positions. However it is clear that, by simply exchanging O's with X's, never an O will be removed from the matrix. This shows that the O's move to invisible, i.e., undefinable matrix positions. These are called dark positions. They cannot be enumerated.

(Includes your user id)
CC BY-SA 4.0
New contributor
Jaroslaw is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
7
  • 2
    Muckenheim’s work is very dubious imho and has been rejected on MSE beforehand. Their objection is never made rigorously clear
    – FShrike
    1 hour ago
  • 2
    The “dark,invisible” positions require precise definition independently of what you, Muckenheim or anyone else find to be intuitive.
    – FShrike
    1 hour ago
  • 5
    I agree with FShrike. A proof of the existence of an object when the object itself has not yet been defined does not make for a convincing proof.
    – Matt E.
    1 hour ago
  • 1
    The same stuff was posted recently on MO (and deleted shortly thereafter).
    – Martin R
    1 hour ago
  • 1
    it's hard to impossible to give a counteragument to a proof that just makes no sense, for example using undefined terms... if I said that "hjhjhjqrt" proves the Riemann hypothesis what would you say? 45 mins ago

0