> Therefore the reals would have to include all kinds of numbers that have > no > finite description at all. I am not sure I believe such things exist, and > for a similar reason I am not sure I believe that every member of the > hypothetical "power set of the integers" exists either.
Hi Jesse, I think you are asking an important question. I think it relates to self referencing definitions - which is implicit in the axiomatic approach. Here's a go at defining the describable reals... The formal axiom that distinguishes the reals from the rationals is the completeness axiom. This can take a number of different forms. One version is : Every set bounded above has a supremum. Let Q be the set of rationals. This is a solid starting point because every rational has a finite description. Consider that we restrict ourselves to sets of the form X = { x in Q | p(x) } where p(x) is a predicate on a rational number x. Given that every rational has a finite description, and p(x) is associated with a finite description, we deduce that X and all its members are describable. The completeness axiom says that X has upper bound => sup(X) exists. It seems to me that we can take this as a way of defining the *describable* reals like sqrt(2) or pi - because it is precisely the "holes" in the set of rationals that make us want to "plug them up". Eg sqrt(2) = sup { x in Q | x^2 < 2 } Naturally, we will only be able to describe countably many numbers in this way. Let's call this set R. Note that R was defined in terms of completing the rationals, rather than "completing itself" which is the normal axiomatic way of defining the reals. A self reference approach would have been to write X = { x in R | p(x) } So that we are using the reals to define the reals! - David