On going through a layperson-readable take on Skolem's paradox
here I noticed that the author (Steven Landsburg) talked about producing different models of
\mathbb{R} from different 'models' of
\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{Q}) (powersets of the rationals). Why didn't he talk about Cauchy sequences? (because that's how we construct
\mathbb{R}, right?)
As long as we don't mind throwing out the really boring sequences (like
\{1,1,1,1...\}) with only finitely many unique elements, no emphasis on sequences is necessary. Because
\mathbb{Q} is countable, any subset is at most countable, and can be ordered and considered as a sequence. Furthermore, actually
assigning an ordering is unnecessary...
Call a subset
S \subset \mathbb{Q} a
Cauchy subset iif
1)
S is infinite
2)
\, \forall \, \epsilon > 0 \, \exists \, x \in S such that
\{ y \in S : |x-y|\geq \epsilon \} is finite
As an exercise, show (because my probably-nonexistent readership loves exercises, right?)
-
S is a Cauchy sequence under a particular ordering
\Leftrightarrow S is a Cauchy set
\Leftrightarrow S is a Cauchy sequence under every ordering.
-All the above statements/definitions work equally well with subsets of
\mathbb{R}, not just
\mathbb{Q}. (hint: show that condition 2 forces
S to be at most countable)