Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • So I mentioned in passing in another video that if you throw a dart at the real number

  • line your chance of hitting a rational number is exactly zero.

  • And there's no tricks here, the dart is guaranteed to land on the line, and there are an infinite

  • number of rational numbers on the number line, just waiting to be hit.

  • Rational numbers flooding into every crevice between two other rational numbers, every

  • possible ratio of one integer to another, so many numbers, but yeah, the dart won't

  • hit any of those.

  • 0%.

  • Really, actually, 0.

  • Think about them written out with all their digits.

  • There's some nice simple numbers with a finite number of non-zero digits before it's

  • infinite zeroes.

  • Then there's rational numbers with repeating digits.

  • Every rational number has a section that repeats infinitely, sometimes it's just a repeating

  • zero, sometimes a single digit, and sometimes many digits.

  • The repeating sections may get longer and farther as you get more and more between,

  • but if it can be represented by a fraction, it can be represented with a repeating decimal.

  • And you can make up any set of repeating digits, and it will be a rational number: the repeating

  • section over an equal amount of 9s. .1repeating is 1/9, .11repeating is the same thing, 11/99

  • or 111/999, it's all 1/9th, and of course 2 times .1repeating is .2repeating or 2/9,

  • .3repeating is 3/9 or 1/3.

  • 12345678901234567890 repeating is 1234567890/9999999999.

  • .9repeating is 9/9.

  • A number that repeats infinitely has only finite information.

  • But when you don't repeat, there's just so many more possibilities.

  • Any infinite sequence of numbers can make a real number, and if it doesn't repeat,

  • the number's irrational.

  • You could make a random irrational number between 3 and 4 by starting with 3 and rolling

  • a 10-sided die an infinite number of times for the digits.

  • What are your chances of getting exactly pi?

  • What if you wanted a rational number that ended in repeating digits, like 3+1/3?

  • How long could you expect to keep rolling 3s, on a fair die?

  • Doesn't matter how lucky you are; if you literally roll infinite times, the chance of all 3s

  • is zero, exactly zero.

  • You'll eventually roll something else, and then even if you go back to threes for a while,

  • you'll eventually roll something else again.

  • Same with any rational: imagine rolling a dice and getting the same repeating sequence

  • over and over every time you roll it.

  • How long would you realistically expect that to last?

  • Forever and ever through infinite rolls?

  • No chance.

  • Of course, the chance of getting all 3s is the same as the chance of getting any particular

  • number, and if the chance of getting any particular number is exactly zero then how can you hit

  • any number?

  • It calls into question the very process of how to pick a random real number, because

  • you can't actually define a real number through a series of random dice rolls, and math has

  • problems with randomness in general, and a single infinite random numbers would be infinite

  • information which doesn't fit in our universe...

  • But before we get to transcendentals, let's talk algebraic.

  • Algebraic numbers can by definition be defined with algebra. (which, spoiler alert, other

  • numbers can't.)

  • So for example every rational number can be defined as some finite combination of digits,

  • a division sign, and another finite combination of digits, and throw a minus sign into the

  • first symbol's mix, but you can also use other symbols to get irrational numbers.

  • Some irrational numbers can be defined very simply with just a couple algebraic symbols,

  • like sqrt2, or just a few algebraic symbols, like Phi the so-called golden ratio which

  • is exactly (1+sqrt 5)/2.

  • Then, some numbers can only be defined as part of an unsolved equation, here there's

  • no algebraic way to solve for x, you can only approximate.

  • But we don't care if we can solve for x as long as we can fully define it, no approximations.

  • Which, by the way, it's totally crazy that you can make up algebraic equations that algebra

  • can't solve, but also entirely inevitable, and a hint that there's much cooler math lurking

  • beyond algebra.

  • And you can totally list the number of possible combinations of algebraic symbols, starting

  • with combinations of 1 symbol and then listing all valid combinations of 2 symbols and then

  • 3 and so on up until an arbitrarily large but finite number of symbols.

  • You'll have a lot of combinations that aren't valid or that are equal to earlier ones so

  • they don't need to go on the list.

  • But since you can list all possible algebraic numbers, they match up 1 to 1 with the counting

  • numbers, there's exactly as many, they have cardinality aleph null.

  • This also matches up 1 to 1 with trying to list all numbers in decimal by putting together

  • all combinations of digits, which is something a lot of people mentioned in response to Cantor's

  • Diagonal proof.

  • Does this process get you all the numbers?

  • Well, it gets you all possible finite combinations of digits, but nothing with infinite digits,

  • no irrational numbers, and not most of the rationals either, since most rational numbers

  • end in an infinitely repeating series.

  • It's not a one-to-one number correspondence unless you can make a function that tells

  • me exactly which unique entry on the list corresponds to pi, and which to 1/3, and which

  • to champernowne's constant... and the answer can't be "it gets to the irrationals at infinity"

  • because first that's not a whole number and second that's not one to one, so, yeah, probably

  • not a one to one number correspondence.

  • It's so simple to list all possible combinations of algebraic symbols, but this list will never

  • get to the numbers that would take an infinite amount of symbols to define, just as listing

  • all combinations of digits will never get to numbers with infinite digits.

  • These non-algebraic numbers are the trancendental numbers, they transcend algebra.

  • And even if there is some infinite way to define them, this list of all combinations

  • still never gets there.

  • Maybe there's a way to approach a given transcendental number with a pattern that makes sense, like

  • for pi and e, but for most numbers we have no idea how to define them or whether they

  • can be defined at all.

  • You hit a random real number with a dart and we don't even know how to look at the result,

  • how to differentiate it from all the ones around it.

  • Does the dart give results in decimal?

  • Because no finite amount of digits will tell you what this number is.

  • Does the dart report back in algebraic symbols?

  • Because there's a 0% chance that you've hit a number that can be defined with a finite

  • amount of algebraic symbols.

  • Somehow, out of the uncountably infinite set of transcendental numbers, 100% of real numbers,

  • most people only know Pi and e and maybe, like, champernowne's constant, and... what

  • else is transcendental?

  • Well, maybe one reason most people don't know more transcendental numbers is that nobody

  • knows very many transcendental numbers, the field of mathematics is a little slow on figuring

  • out how to prove whether numbers are transcendental or not, there's lots of open questions in

  • Transcendence Theory, like, we don't even know whether Euler's constant is irrational

  • much less transcendental-- super embarrassing... or maybe it's rational or maybe tomorrow someone

  • will come up with an algebraic equation for it or maybe someone will prove that you can't

  • prove whether or not you can prove it's transcendental.

  • I mean, that kind of thing happens.

  • Sometimes.

  • Anyway, I think most people's problem with Cantor's Diagonal Proof is actually a problem

  • with Real Numbers, with the idea that there are numbers that cannot be defined, that have

  • any arbitrary combination of infinite digits, infinite information, because yeah, that's

  • pretty weird.

  • Whoever decided to call them "real" numbers didn't think that one through.

  • Thanks a lot, Descartes.

So I mentioned in passing in another video that if you throw a dart at the real number

字幕與單字

單字即點即查 點擊單字可以查詢單字解釋

B2 中高級

超凡飛鏢 (Transcendental Darts)

  • 1 0
    林宜悉 發佈於 2021 年 01 月 14 日
影片單字