All you have to do is c o m p r e h e n d this statement and diagonalisation falls apart
in [Logic]
|
Prev: All you have to do is c o m p r e h e n d this statement anddiagonalisation falls apart
Next: *NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE* is an OXYMORON!
From: |-|ercules on 12 Jun 2010 20:16 "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > 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 Now herzbert, however crude, never backs away from a question! Do you agree with George here hz? "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
From: |-|ercules on 13 Jun 2010 01:23
> Now herzbert, however crude, never backs away from a question! I was of course joking! 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! Herc |