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 8 Jun 2010 22:29 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... > Here's what's funny about USENET. In a regular classroom, > you have one teacher and many students. In a typical USENET > discussion, there are many teachers and just one student. > You'd think that such a low student/teacher ratio would make > for quick progress, but that doesn't turn out to be the case. > Herc's ignorance can defeat any number of teachers, no matter > how knowledgeable and patient. > If one of the 'teachers' would just answer my questions instead of putting their fingers in their ears and reading maths scripture then maybe we could work together on a what Cantor's proofs entail. TRUE or FALSE 1/ no box of the box numbers not in their own boxes proves higher infinities 2/ all possible digit sequences are computable to all, as in an infinite amount of, finite lengths ANY form of EVASION and not ANSWERING the questions will be discarded. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 8 Jun 2010 22:32 "Tim Little" <tim(a)little-possums.net> wrote ... > On 2010-06-08, William Hughes <wpihughes(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> I would prefer to say that the diagonalization argument >> shows that there is no list of real numbers. In this >> form it is true if you only allow computable numbers >> (thus only computable lists) [...] > > You need to be careful here. A computable list must contain only > computable numbers, but not all lists of computable numbers are > computable lists. Only finite lists of computable numbers are > necessarily computable. > > Herc made that mistake when he said that he could compute a list of > all computable numbers. That is impossible. > God doesn't make mistakes. I make SPELLING mistakes, but nobody has ever corrected me without making a mistake themselves. Dozens have tried and all stuffed up. Part of my immortality field, you can't correct me. THAT is impossible. Herc
From: George Greene on 8 Jun 2010 23:00 On Jun 8, 4:19 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > All possible digit sequences are computable to all, as in an infinite amount of, finite lengths > > TRUE or NOT? Nonsensically stupid. Barely even grammatical. All finite amounts IS NOT "an infinite amount", not EVEN ONE infinite amount. Infinitely many finite amounts, taken together as a totality, still "contain" only ZERO infinite amounts. Having infinitely many red things does not mean you have a blue thing, dumbass.
From: George Greene on 8 Jun 2010 23:01 On Jun 8, 4:23 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > That's the FIRST reason you FAIL. > You think a NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE is found just like 159 and 260. We DON'T merely THINK this, dumbass: we PROVED it. Except we did NOT say it was FOUND! We said it EXISTED! That is why you call it dark!
From: George Greene on 8 Jun 2010 23:02
On Jun 8, 4:23 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > That's the FIRST reason you FAIL. You think a NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE is found just like 159 and 260. And the reason why YOU fail is that you think it isn't. Your failure is of course much more abject since WE CAN PROVE our position, and all you can do is flaunt your stupidity. |