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 22:27 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 -- the nonexistence of a box that contains the numbers of all the boxes that don't contain their own box number implies higher infinities. - Cantor's Proof (the holy grail of paradise in mathematics)
From: the man from havana on 7 Jun 2010 22:32 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 !
From: Dingo on 7 Jun 2010 22:36 On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:27:29 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Here is an example of diagonalization More meaningless drivel.
From: William Hughes on 7 Jun 2010 22:38 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
From: Sylvia Else on 7 Jun 2010 22:39
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. |