Prev: Reality
Next: Why Extensionality is an axiom?
From: herbzet on 12 Jun 2010 20:03


Colin wrote:
> "|-|ercules" wrote:
> > [snip]
>
> Why do you insist on flogging a dead horse? Even wikipedia writes
>
> "Although the set of real numbers is uncountable, the set of
> computable numbers is countable and thus almost all real numbers are
> not computable. The computable numbers can be counted by assigning a
> Gödel number to each Turing machine definition. This gives a function
> from the naturals to the computable reals. Although the computable
> numbers are an ordered field, the set of Gödel numbers corresponding
> to computable numbers is not itself computably enumerable, because it
> is not possible to effectively determine which Gödel numbers
> correspond to Turing machines that produce computable reals. In order
> to produce a computable real, a Turing machine must compute a total
> function, but the corresponding decision problem is in Turing degree 0′
> ′. Thus Cantor's diagonal argument cannot be used to produce
> uncountably many computable reals; at best, the reals formed from this
> method will be uncomputable."
>
> So, the computable reals are countable, and Cantor's diagonal argument
> won't show they're uncountable. No one disputes this. Why do you keep
> insisting that there are people who do dispute it and keep trying to
> argue with them? You're arguing with people that don't exist.

Some people like Herc enjoy jerking off in public.
The disgust they inspire makes them feel powerful.

When I was living in NYC, they arrested a guy down
on Wall Street who had made it his practice among
the lunch hour crowds to shoot pins into people's
butts with a blowgun he had fashioned from a
drinking straw.

True story -- I read it in the Daily News.

That guy lives forever in my mind as perfection of a sort.

--
hz
From: Mike Terry on 12 Jun 2010 22:24
"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87ij8aFru5U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote
>
> [THE PROPOSITION]
> >> Do you believe there are numerous different digits (at finite
positions)
> >> all along the expansion
> >> of some reals that are not on the computable reals list?
> >
> > I'm afraid that what you've just asked is strictly nonsense, because a
> > specific digit of an expansion of a real (like "7", or "2") can't be on
a
> > computable reals list, because the list is a list of reals, not digits,
> > (duh! :-)
> >
> > But I think I know what you meant to say...
> >
> > Are you in fact trying to ask whether we believe there are specific
reals
> > that have one or more of their finite prefixes that can't be computed?
More
> > precisely, you're asking us do we believe there exists a real with
> > digit-sequence D, such that for some n the (finite) sequence
> > D(1),D(2)...D(n) is not computable?
> >
> > Mike.
>
>
> No. I merely rephrased George Greene's claim. This will be the basis
> for a FORMAL disproof that modifying the diagonal resulting in new
numbers.

So you don't even know what you're asking. It's "not what I just said", but
you don't know what it is instead? It's just "rephrasing George's claim"
(according to you) but you don't know what you're rephrasing? This all
sounds familiar...


>
>
> "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote
> > On Jun 8, 4:29 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> YOU CAN'T FIND A NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE AT ANY POSITION ON THE COMPUTABLE
REALS.
> >
> > OF COURSE you can't find it "at any position".
> > It is INFINITELY long and the differences occur at INFINITELY MANY
> > DIFFERENT positions!
>
>
> OK SHOW OF HANDS!
>
> Who agrees with George?

But by your own admission you don't even understand what you're asking
yourself, so what would be the point of anyone saying yay or nay at this
point?

Ask a coherent question, and people may give meaningful answers! Maybe when
your "formal disproof" comes out there will be concrete statements that
actually say something? (I'm looking forward to that.)

Regards,
Mike.



From: |-|ercules on 13 Jun 2010 01:22
"Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:87ij8aFru5U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote
>>
>> [THE PROPOSITION]
>> >> Do you believe there are numerous different digits (at finite
> positions)
>> >> all along the expansion
>> >> of some reals that are not on the computable reals list?
>> >
>> > I'm afraid that what you've just asked is strictly nonsense, because a
>> > specific digit of an expansion of a real (like "7", or "2") can't be on
> a
>> > computable reals list, because the list is a list of reals, not digits,
>> > (duh! :-)
>> >
>> > But I think I know what you meant to say...
>> >
>> > Are you in fact trying to ask whether we believe there are specific
> reals
>> > that have one or more of their finite prefixes that can't be computed?
> More
>> > precisely, you're asking us do we believe there exists a real with
>> > digit-sequence D, such that for some n the (finite) sequence
>> > D(1),D(2)...D(n) is not computable?
>> >
>> > Mike.
>>
>>
>> No. I merely rephrased George Greene's claim. This will be the basis
>> for a FORMAL disproof that modifying the diagonal resulting in new
> numbers.
>
> So you don't even know what you're asking. It's "not what I just said", but
> you don't know what it is instead? It's just "rephrasing George's claim"
> (according to you) but you don't know what you're rephrasing? This all
> sounds familiar...
>
>
>>
>>
>> "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote
>> > On Jun 8, 4:29 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> YOU CAN'T FIND A NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE AT ANY POSITION ON THE COMPUTABLE
> REALS.
>> >
>> > OF COURSE you can't find it "at any position".
>> > It is INFINITELY long and the differences occur at INFINITELY MANY
>> > DIFFERENT positions!
>>
>>
>> OK SHOW OF HANDS!
>>
>> Who agrees with George?
>
> But by your own admission you don't even understand what you're asking
> yourself, so what would be the point of anyone saying yay or nay at this
> point?
>
> Ask a coherent question, and people may give meaningful answers! Maybe when
> your "formal disproof" comes out there will be concrete statements that
> actually say something? (I'm looking forward to that.)
>
> Regards,
> Mike.


You accuse me of not knowing what I wrote because I said it's a rephrasing of George's
statement. Why waste a 'coherent question' on a buffoon like you who can't argue
coherently?

If you dispute my phrase, you are disputing George's, get it?



Everyone is avoiding the (equivalent) question, is George correct here?


"George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote
> On Jun 8, 4:29 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> YOU CAN'T FIND A NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE AT ANY POSITION ON THE COMPUTABLE REALS.
>
> OF COURSE you can't find it "at any position".
> It is INFINITELY long and the differences occur at INFINITELY MANY
> DIFFERENT positions!



What do you want a THIRD rephrasing?

Herc
From: |-|ercules on 13 Jun 2010 01:24
So do you agree with George's statement here?



"George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote
> On Jun 8, 4:29 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> YOU CAN'T FIND A NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE AT ANY POSITION ON THE COMPUTABLE REALS.
>
> OF COURSE you can't find it "at any position".
> It is INFINITELY long and the differences occur at INFINITELY MANY
> DIFFERENT positions!



Herc
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Reality
Next: Why Extensionality is an axiom?