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 11 Jun 2010 22:30 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > On Jun 9, 5:17 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> You seem firm in your beliefs, and the meaning of the post is lost on you yet again. > > Do we need to coin a new category of irony for this? Solipsistic > irony? > A purer example has rarely been seen; though he doesn't know it, this > is Herc that Herc is talking about. I understand fully every point made against me. I also happen to see the error in your posts. 75% of sci.math however, will snip my argument and make the refutation naked, repeating the same erroneous argument. Is it too much for you to fathom that I disagree that no box containing the box numbers that don't contain their own box numbers is self referential on some level? MAYBE, just MAYBE there is another explanation than sets larger than infinity? 2 or 3 posters on sci.math have agreed that every possible digit sequence is computable to ALL (an INFINITE AMOUNT of) finite initial substrings. All you have to do is c o m p r e h e n d that statement and diagonalisation falls apart. BTW: ALL (an INFINITE AMOUNT of) natural numbers are in "all natural numbers" incase you want to feign comprehension disability again. Anyway, I'm going to find a book like "ZFC for dummies" and put into ZFC that the only interpretation of "THERE ARE NUMEROUS UNIQUE DIGITS ALONG THE EXPANSION OF SOME NON-COMPUTABLE REALS" is "There is a finite substring between 2 digits (inclusive) that is not computable" which is a clear contradiction. So do you still believe there are numerous different digits (at finite positions) all along the expansion of some reals that are not on the computable reals list? What does that mean? Herc
From: Pol Lux on 11 Jun 2010 23:36 On Jun 8, 10:00 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jun 7, 10:27 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! > > It works on EVERY [square] list. PERIOD. > > > > > 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. > > THERE IS a new digit sequence that can be formed, DUMBASS. > THIS digit sequence, the one formed by THIS process, IS NEW, dumbass! > THIS sequence IS NOT ON the list! > This sequence differs from EVERY sequence ON the list AT A FINITE > position > (it's just a DIFFERENT, LATER finite position for every DIFFERENT, > LATER sequence on the list). > > > You're all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they're all > > computed up to infinite length? > > They're NOT ALL computed to infinte length, DUMBASS! > The ones ON THE LIST are computed to infinite length, but the > far greater number of them NOT on the list are NOT computed AT ALL! > Even though EVERY FINITE sublist of them is computed. > EVERY FINITE ANYthing is computed! > Computer programs can be ANY FINITE length! There is no upper limit! > > > > > Or as George Greene puts it, they're all computed up to ALL (infinite) FINITE lengths. > > Right. > > > And as George Greene puts it there's a new digit sequence at some FINITE point. > > Oh, bullshit! I did NOT say THAT! > The new sequence being computed IS NOT "new" at ANY "finite point"; > EVERY FINITE sequence has the property that a great many elements on > the list > begin with that sequence! This thread a repetition. It's been established 100 times already on sci.math that Cantor was utterly wrong if not stupid. Fun grade: 3/10. Too long and repetitive.
From: Virgil on 11 Jun 2010 23:59 > This thread a repetition. It's been established 100 times already on > sci.math that Cantor was utterly wrong if not stupid. Actually Cantor is more right than any of his critics!
From: Ron on 12 Jun 2010 00:09 On Jun 11, 11:36 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 10:00 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 10:27 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! > > > It works on EVERY [square] list. PERIOD. > > > > 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. > > > THERE IS a new digit sequence that can be formed, DUMBASS. > > THIS digit sequence, the one formed by THIS process, IS NEW, dumbass! > > THIS sequence IS NOT ON the list! > > This sequence differs from EVERY sequence ON the list AT A FINITE > > position > > (it's just a DIFFERENT, LATER finite position for every DIFFERENT, > > LATER sequence on the list). > > > > You're all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they're all > > > computed up to infinite length? > > > They're NOT ALL computed to infinte length, DUMBASS! > > The ones ON THE LIST are computed to infinite length, but the > > far greater number of them NOT on the list are NOT computed AT ALL! > > Even though EVERY FINITE sublist of them is computed. > > EVERY FINITE ANYthing is computed! > > Computer programs can be ANY FINITE length! There is no upper limit! > > > > Or as George Greene puts it, they're all computed up to ALL (infinite) FINITE lengths. > > > Right. > > > > And as George Greene puts it there's a new digit sequence at some FINITE point. > > > Oh, bullshit! I did NOT say THAT! > > The new sequence being computed IS NOT "new" at ANY "finite point"; > > EVERY FINITE sequence has the property that a great many elements on > > the list > > begin with that sequence! > > This thread a repetition. It's been established 100 times already on > sci.math that Cantor was utterly wrong if not stupid. Fun grade: 3/10. > Too long and repetitive. "established"? considering Cantor was correct I find that hard to believe.
From: Pol Lux on 12 Jun 2010 00:30
On Jun 11, 9:09 pm, Ron <ron.sper...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 11, 11:36 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 8, 10:00 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > > > > On Jun 7, 10:27 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! > > > > It works on EVERY [square] list. PERIOD. > > > > > 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. > > > > THERE IS a new digit sequence that can be formed, DUMBASS. > > > THIS digit sequence, the one formed by THIS process, IS NEW, dumbass! > > > THIS sequence IS NOT ON the list! > > > This sequence differs from EVERY sequence ON the list AT A FINITE > > > position > > > (it's just a DIFFERENT, LATER finite position for every DIFFERENT, > > > LATER sequence on the list). > > > > > You're all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they're all > > > > computed up to infinite length? > > > > They're NOT ALL computed to infinte length, DUMBASS! > > > The ones ON THE LIST are computed to infinite length, but the > > > far greater number of them NOT on the list are NOT computed AT ALL! > > > Even though EVERY FINITE sublist of them is computed. > > > EVERY FINITE ANYthing is computed! > > > Computer programs can be ANY FINITE length! There is no upper limit! > > > > > Or as George Greene puts it, they're all computed up to ALL (infinite) FINITE lengths. > > > > Right. > > > > > And as George Greene puts it there's a new digit sequence at some FINITE point. > > > > Oh, bullshit! I did NOT say THAT! > > > The new sequence being computed IS NOT "new" at ANY "finite point"; > > > EVERY FINITE sequence has the property that a great many elements on > > > the list > > > begin with that sequence! > > > This thread a repetition. It's been established 100 times already on > > sci.math that Cantor was utterly wrong if not stupid. Fun grade: 3/10. > > Too long and repetitive. > > "established"? considering Cantor was correct I find that hard to > believe. Hey guys, you are not taking me seriously, are you? You are scaring me! I was just being ironic, you know... |