## Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

 Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse

### #1 mmiguel

mmiguel

• Members
• 134 posts
• Gender:Not Telling

Posted 07 September 2012 - 03:54 AM

This one is cool!

The paradox begins with the observation that certain expressions in English unambiguously define real numbers, while other expressions in English do not. For example, "The real number whose integer part is 17 and whose nth decimal place is 0 if n is even and 1 if n is odd" defines the real number 17.1010101..., while the phrase "London is in England" does not define a real number.

Thus there is an infinite list of English phrases (where each phrase is of finite length, but lengths vary in the list) that unambiguously define real numbers; arrange this list by length and thendictionary order, so that the ordering is canonical. This yields an infinite list of the corresponding real numbers: r1, r2, ... . Now define a new real number r as follows. The integer part of r is 0, thenth decimal place of r is 1 if the nth decimal place of rn is not 1, and the nth decimal place of r is 2 if the nth decimal place of rn is 1.

The preceding two paragraphs are an expression in English which unambiguously defines a real number r. Thus r must be one of the numbers rn. However, r was constructed so that it cannot equal any of the rn. This is the paradoxical contradiction.

• 0

### #2 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 5313 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 07 September 2012 - 08:15 PM

It is cool, indeed.

It is of the same type as Berry's Paradox. Both involve English phrases that describe numbers.

What is the smallest number not specifiable using fewer than twenty-three syllables?

Let's say that number is 1,777,777.
One mil-ion sev-en hun-dred se-ven-ty sev-en thou-sand sev-en hun-dred sev-en-ty se-ven -- that's 23 syllables.
And there doesn't seem to be a smaller number that requires that many.

But that number is specified by the phrase in red above. And that phrase contains fewer than 23 syllables.
So 1,777.777 is specifiable by fewer than twenty-three syllables.

The usual work-around for paradoxes of this type is to segregate statements that use verbal descriptions from statements that are numerical.

• 0
The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.
- Bertrand Russell

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users