Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If we map every integer to a string that represents a rational number, and produce a number different from all the ones listed, we are essentially following Cantor's algorithm. But why does it not apply? Is it because we can't be certain that the number produced is a rational number?

share|cite|improve this question
If you have an explicit countable ordering of the rational numbers and an explicit version of Cantor's algorithm (watching out for the $0.5000\ldots=0.4999\ldots$ issue), then this gives you a way of generating a guaranteed irrational number. – Henry May 22 '11 at 21:11
up vote 14 down vote accepted

It applies, in the sense that you can carry it out. However, the number you obtain through the process is not a rational (it does not have a periodic decimal expansion).

To be precise, the procedure does not let you guarantee that the number you obtain has a periodic decimal expansion (that is, that it is a rational number), and so you are unable to show that the "diagonal number" is a rational that was not in the original list. In fact, if your original list is given explicitly by some bijection, then one is able to show just as explicitly that the number you obtain is not a rational.

share|cite|improve this answer
btw, for anyone interested, there is a nice detailed explanation of exactly this answer here: – Christiaan Hattingh Jan 27 '15 at 12:11

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.