A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof
in [Math]
|
Prev: I'm gonna try this one more time CANTOR DISPROOF
Next: Reliability: Treating the Building & the Fault Line As One & the Same
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 22:41 "William Hughes" <wpihughes(a)hotmail.com> wrote > On Jun 7, 11:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here is an example of diagonalization >> >> 123 >> 456 >> 789 >> >> Diag = 159 >> >> AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST! >> >> YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS! >> >> DON'T YOU!!! >> >> Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if there's >> no new digit sequence that can be formed. >> >> You're all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they're all >> computed up to infinite length? > > You can't. So you have a contradiction. The assumption > that there is a list of all real numbers is wrong. > > - William Hughes You can't find a new sequence using diagonalization? Herc
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 22:42 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote ... > On 8/06/2010 12:27 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> Here is an example of diagonalization >> >> 123 >> 456 >> 789 >> >> Diag = 159 >> >> AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST! >> >> YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS! >> >> DON'T YOU!!! >> >> Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if >> there's >> no new digit sequence that can be formed. >> >> You're all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they're all >> computed up to infinite length? >> Or as George Greene puts it, they're all computed up to ALL (infinite) >> FINITE lengths. >> >> And as George Greene puts it there's a new digit sequence at some FINITE >> point. >> >> Well I can't see it. >> >> Herc > > As usual, it's far from clear what you're on about. > > However, the computable reals are countable, so one could hardly expect > a diagonalisation argument to show that they're not, if that's where > you're coming from. > > Sylvia. I think you brainfarted dear. Herc
From: William Hughes on 7 Jun 2010 22:47 On Jun 7, 11:41 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "William Hughes" <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > > > > On Jun 7, 11:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Here is an example of diagonalization > > >> 123 > >> 456 > >> 789 > > >> Diag = 159 > > >> AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST! > > >> YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS! > > >> DON'T YOU!!! > > >> Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if there's > >> no new digit sequence that can be formed. > > >> You're all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they're all > >> computed up to infinite length? > > > You can't. So you have a contradiction. The assumption > > that there is a list of all real numbers is wrong. > > > - William Hughes > > You can't find a new sequence using diagonalization? Not if you start with a list that does not exist. - William Hughes
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 22:51 "William Hughes" <wpihughes(a)hotmail.com> wrote > On Jun 7, 11:41 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> "William Hughes" <wpihug...(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> >> >> > On Jun 7, 11:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Here is an example of diagonalization >> >> >> 123 >> >> 456 >> >> 789 >> >> >> Diag = 159 >> >> >> AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST! >> >> >> YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS! >> >> >> DON'T YOU!!! >> >> >> Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if there's >> >> no new digit sequence that can be formed. >> >> >> You're all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they're all >> >> computed up to infinite length? >> >> > You can't. So you have a contradiction. The assumption >> > that there is a list of all real numbers is wrong. >> >> > - William Hughes >> >> You can't find a new sequence using diagonalization? > > Not if you start with a list that does not exist. > > - William Hughes I can compute the list of all computable reals. There's just some numbers that show up blank. It's trivial to compute a list that covers every digit sequence to all (infinite) finite lengths. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 22:55
"the man from havana" <thehouseoftrolls(a)gmail.com> wrote ... > On Jun 8, 12:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here is an example of diagonalization >> >> 123 >> 456 > > > > give it a rest you junky ! no prob, last thread Herc |