this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
231 points (100.0% liked)

196

16449 readers
1997 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Computable. There are countably many computable numbers since there are only countably many possible programs. Non-computable numbers can't be exactly referred to / described / constructed by a program, so if your point of view is that everything is a program, you would say they don't exist.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

homotopy type theory has a way to describe the reals in full generality via cauchy sequences, so if type checking ever gets proven to be decidable, this won't be true any longer. it's chapter 11 in the hott book.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guarantee you're misunderstanding or accidentally misrepresenting something here. The fact that there are only countably many computable numbers is a simple consequence of the fact that there are only countably many programs, which is bounded above by the number of finite sequences of letters from a finite alphabet, which is countably infinite.

There may be more finitistic/computable models for the real numbers or something, but "the computable real numbers" are countable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the model provided is a lazy cauchy sequence so any given real number can be computed to arbitrary precision. the theorems about real numbers are directly provable and potentially machine checkable, assuming decidable type checking works out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Nothing about what you said contradicts what I said. You can either change the definition of the computable real numbers, or agree that they are countable.