Adriana Xenides Dead
in [Logic]
|
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 16:01 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote .. > Herc7 <ozdude(a)australia.edu> writes: > >> On Jun 7, 6:56 pm, "Kelpie" <kelp...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> "A Little Bit" <ti...(a)beerlover.com.au> wrote in messagenews:0l9p0696j5dql6jcuh953h1c4qg8teo6n3(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> > Adriana Xenides Dead of Wheel of Fortune fame has died after an operation >>> > in hospital. She >>> > was only 54. >>> >>> I hope she's turning letters in the sky. >> >> Xen dies > > X denies. > >> it appears I *have* disproven higher infinity > > No, you haven't. The mysterious value X denies the validity of your > "proof". > Fraid so, when I booted Ullrich out of my office due to Principal Transfer, the reason I'm here, he forgot to take his little doggy with him, skit boy! Funny nobody on sci.math will answer this question on higher infinity, on the same day Xendies dies, a favorite Australian model who spent a career revealing what label was on the box! >> Given a set of labeled boxes containing numbers inside them, >> can you possibly find a box containing all the label numbers of boxes >> that don't contain their own label number? Have a go mate! Then if you're the first sci.mather to admit I disproved Cantor, Halt, Turing, and Godel in front of his peers you can be my Assistant Principal. Herc
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 7 Jun 2010 17:14 "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: >>> Given a set of labeled boxes containing numbers inside them, >>> can you possibly find a box containing all the label numbers of boxes >>> that don't contain their own label number? > > Have a go mate! The answer is no, near as I can figure. Now, if you also knew that, for each set of numbers, there is a box containing that set, then you'd have a paradox. Near as I can figure, you *don't* know that. In set theory, on the other hand, we *do* know the analogous claim. -- Jesse F. Hughes "Casting [Demi] Moore as a woman who has come to the New World so that she can 'worship without fear or persecution' in _The_Scarlet_Letter_ is like casting Bruce Willis as Young Rene Descartes." -Joe Queenan
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 17:46 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote > "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >>>> Given a set of labeled boxes containing numbers inside them, >>>> can you possibly find a box containing all the label numbers of boxes >>>> that don't contain their own label number? >> >> Have a go mate! > > The answer is no, near as I can figure. > > Now, if you also knew that, for each set of numbers, there is a box > containing that set, then you'd have a paradox. Near as I can figure, > you *don't* know that. > > In set theory, on the other hand, we *do* know the analogous claim. So, no box ever containing the numbers of boxes not containing their own numbers means higher infinities exist? Herc
From: William Hughes on 7 Jun 2010 18:29 On Jun 7, 6:46 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote > > > "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > >>>> Given a set of labeled boxes containing numbers inside them, > >>>> can you possibly find a box containing all the label numbers of boxes > >>>> that don't contain their own label number? > > >> Have a go mate! > > > The answer is no, near as I can figure. > > > Now, if you also knew that, for each set of numbers, there is a box > > containing that set, then you'd have a paradox. Near as I can figure, > > you *don't* know that. > > > In set theory, on the other hand, we *do* know the analogous claim. > > So, no box ever containing the numbers of boxes not containing their own numbers > means higher infinities exist? > Yes. - William Hughes
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 18:53 "William Hughes" <wpihughes(a)hotmail.com> wrote .. > On Jun 7, 6:46 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote >> >> > "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> >> >>>> Given a set of labeled boxes containing numbers inside them, >> >>>> can you possibly find a box containing all the label numbers of boxes >> >>>> that don't contain their own label number? >> >> >> Have a go mate! >> >> > The answer is no, near as I can figure. >> >> > Now, if you also knew that, for each set of numbers, there is a box >> > containing that set, then you'd have a paradox. Near as I can figure, >> > you *don't* know that. >> >> > In set theory, on the other hand, we *do* know the analogous claim. >> >> So, no box ever containing the numbers of boxes not containing their own numbers >> means higher infinities exist? >> > > Yes. > > - William Hughes > Good. After 4 days you've been given the OK by Ullrich's sidekick to admit, err... No box ever containing the numbers of boxes not containing their own number means higher infinities exist. Herc
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Prev: So many beers, so little time Next: a problem in very very elementary set theory |