←back to thread

God created the real numbers

(www.ethanheilman.com)
136 points Bogdanp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.222s | source
Show context
andrewla ◴[] No.45067770[source]
I'm an enthusiastic Cantor skeptic, I lean very heavily constructivist to the point of almost being a finitist, but nonetheless I think the thesis of this article is basically correct.

Nature and the universe is all about continuous quantities; integral quantities and whole numbers represent an abstraction. At a micro level this is less true -- elementary particles specifically are a (mostly) discrete phenomenon, but representing the state even of a very simple system involves continuous quantities.

But the Cantor vision of the real numbers is just wrong and completely unphysical. The idea of arbitrary precision is intrinsically broken in physical reality. Instead I am off the opinion that computation is the relevant process in the physical universe, so approximations to continuous quantities are where the "Eternal Nature" line lies, and the abstraction of the continuum is just that -- an abstraction of the idea of having perfect knowledge of the state of anything in the universe.

replies(10): >>45067843 #>>45068041 #>>45068086 #>>45068269 #>>45068318 #>>45068389 #>>45069577 #>>45070658 #>>45071417 #>>45075257 #
NoahZuniga ◴[] No.45068389[source]
You know it wouldn't be possible for us to tell the difference between a rational universe (one where all quantities are rational numbers) and a real universe (one where you can have irrational quantities).

The standard construction for the real numbers is to start with the rationals and "fill in all the holes". So why even bother with filling in the holes and instead just declare God created the rationals?

replies(8): >>45068658 #>>45068743 #>>45068954 #>>45068991 #>>45070837 #>>45070881 #>>45071862 #>>45073728 #
omnicognate ◴[] No.45068743[source]
As in why bother using real numbers in physics? Mostly because you need them to make the maths rigorous. You can't do rigorous calculus (i.e. real analysis) on rationals alone.
replies(3): >>45068921 #>>45069997 #>>45070587 #
BeetleB ◴[] No.45070587[source]
We don't need reals to make the math rigorous. Only to make the math a lot more tractable.

I've solved multiple continuous value problems by discretizing, applying combinatorics to the techniques, and then taking the limit of the result - you of course get the same result if you had simply used regular integration/differentiation, and it's a lot easier to use calculus than combinatorics.

But the point is the "rational", discretized approach will get you arbitrarily close to the answer.

It's why many analysis textbooks define a (given) real number as "a sequence of converging rational numbers" (before even defining what a limit is).

replies(3): >>45072805 #>>45075062 #>>45083250 #
1. variadix ◴[] No.45075062[source]
The uncomputable real numbers always seemed strange to me. I can understand a convergent sequence of rationals, or the idea of a program that outputs a number to arbitrary precision, but something that cannot be computed at all is a very bizarre object. I think NJ Wildberger has some interesting ideas in this area, although I’m not sure I agree with his finititist interpretation in all circumstances. Specifically I don’t think comparisons to the number of atoms in the universe or information theoretic limits on storage based on the volume of the observable universe are interesting considerations here.

To me at least, if you can write down a finite procedure that can produce a number to arbitrary precision, I think it is fair to say the number at that limit exists.

This made me think of a possible numerical library where rather than storing numbers as arbitrary precision rationals, you could store them as the combination of inputs and functions that generate that number, and compute values to arbitrary precision.