Revision as of 19:12, 25 April 2025 edit Krzysztof1137 (talk \| contribs) 12 edits →Contradiction.: Reply Tag: Reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:40, 25 April 2025 edit undo Krzysztof1137 (talk \| contribs) 12 edits →Contradiction.: Reply Tag: Reply Next edit →
Line 1,386: :::{{Re\|Krzysztof1137}} ''"The matrix was created only to contradict the diagonal method."'' So it failed.<br>Apparently you confuse 'a possibility of expanding the decimal number infinitely' with 'having an infinite decimal number'. You certainly can find an arbitrarily long sequence of 3's after a decimal point in your table. But each such sequence is located in some specific row of the table and the number of the row determines how many threes there is in the sequence. You may have an infinite set of rows, but the ordinal number of each specific row is some natural number, which is certainly finite. As a result none of those sequences represents {{math\|1/3}}. You definitely can find arbitrarily accurate aporoximations of one-third in your table, but not ''the'' {{math\|1/3}} (let alone {{math\|1/{{sqrt\|3}}}}). --[[User:CiaPan\|CiaPan]] ([[User talk:CiaPan\|talk]]) 20:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC) ::::Now a question for you; 1. Can the diagonal method create an irrational number or an infinite sequence of rational numbers? 2. If the list does not contain all the numbers, will the diagonal method find a new number that is not on the list? [[User:Krzysztof1137\|Krzysztof1137]] ([[User talk:Krzysztof1137\|talk]]) 20:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC) ::::Please answer the questions. [[User:Krzysztof1137\|Krzysztof1137]] ([[User talk:Krzysztof1137\|talk]]) 20:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments: Difference between revisions