A detailed explanation of countability versus uncountability in sets, Cantor's diagonal argument, and the concept of points in one or multiple dimensions. Clarifies misconceptions about cardinality of digit-based numbers and the difference between countable and uncountable sets.
Your question involves several important concepts in mathematics related to set theory, number theory, and infinity. Let's break down each part carefully:
When considering decimal numbers between 0 and 1 with exactly n digits after the decimal point, the quantities are:
These sets are clearly finite for any fixed n. However, when n approaches infinity, we consider all infinite decimal expansions of numbers between 0 and 1, which corresponds to the entire set of real numbers in [0,1).
A set is called countable if its elements can be listed in a sequence (like natural numbers: 1, 2, 3, ...) even if the list is infinite. Otherwise, it is called uncountable.
Cantor's diagonal argument shows that if you try to list all real numbers in [0,1) as infinite decimal expansions, you can always construct a new number not in the list by changing the nth digit of the nth number, ensuring the new number differs from every number in the list in at least one decimal place.
This argument applies to infinite sequences of digits but not to finite sequences. So, it does not contradict that the numbers with any fixed finite number of decimal digits are countable. It only applies when considering the entire infinite decimal expansions, meaning infinitely many digits.
When you consider points in 1D, 2D, 3D, or n-dimensional spaces, the count of points in those continuous intervals or cubes (like [0,1]) is uncountably infinite. For example:
Note: 10n is finite for finite n and goes to infinity as n approaches infinity, but infinity here is countable if it can be put in one-to-one correspondence with natural numbers, which is not the case for uncountable reals.
For the recursive sequence you gave (c(0)=2, c(1)=3, c(n+2) = -1 + 2^{c(n+1)}), the values grow extremely fast (much faster than polynomial or exponential). However, this is a sequence of integers (not a set containing all integers up to that number), so it is still a countable sequence because it is indexed by natural numbers.