CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
in [Logic]
|
From: George Greene on 22 Jun 2010 20:04 On Jun 22, 5:38 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > George atleast posts outright lies or does he really think > y = 2^x is defined when x = oo I DIDN'T SAY "when x = oo" !!! I SAID, when x= w !!! > but not when y = oo > hint: y is the length of the list under discussion NO, DUMBASS, *w* is the length of the list under discussion! IT IS ALSO the WIDTH of EVERY real! > I told mike something like the antidiagonal is 'the other 9 out of 10 > digits ad infinitum" NO, it IS NOT "the other 9": IT IS *JUST ONE*. YOU *HAVE*TO*PICK* ** ONE ** !! IF YOU DO THIS RIGHT (in binary, WHICH IS HOW CANTOR'S THEOREM DOES IT), then THERE IS ONLY ONE anyway! The only other option from "on the list" or "in the box" IS OUT OR OFF! You DON'T HAVE TO WORRY about "the other 9"!! > he said it was nonsense so unasked him to define a general > antidiag for all possible antidiagonals. That was JUST STUPID. There IS NO "all possible". THERE IS JUST ONE. > He STILL blames me for not clarifying the statement about > "the other 9 digits" because I replied with a question > > not only that I pointed this out 4 times and he still writes > lectures that i don't converse properly Well, you don't. The mere fact that you think there is more than 1 anti-diagonal and that this MIGHT MATTER is proof of that. IF there is in fact more than 1 then that JUST means that there are THAT MANY MORE numbers that ARE NOT ON your list, DUMBASS! You are WRONG, THAT MANY MORE *times* !!
From: George Greene on 22 Jun 2010 20:06 On Jun 22, 5:47 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Just because a formula for ALL antidiagonals is deliberately > missing from your text books, It is NOT MISSING and it DOES NOT HAVE a FORMULA! A FORMULA is ONE result! When you have uncountably infinitely MANY results, THE BEST you can do is describe A SET that contains all of them! YOU DON'T get A FORMULA! > doesn't mean it's not a valid formula of mathematics. The formula IS OF SET THEORY, DUMBASS, and IF You are DOING it in Set Theory, then THE ONLY AVAILABLE digits ARE 0 AND 1, because the only available OPTIONS are IN OR OUT of the subset, or the list, or the real.
From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 20:09 On 22/06/2010 4:49 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > IN FACT > > 3 It takes 10^x reals to list every permutation of digits x digits > wide > So with infinite reals you can list Every permutation of digits > infinite digits wide. That's just an assertion. Let's see your proof. You might think it's obvious, but in Maths, obvious doesn't count. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 20:36 On 23/06/2010 3:42 AM, Mike Terry wrote: > "Sylvia Else"<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote in message > news:88ajhvF3kjU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> On 22/06/2010 11:41 AM, herbzet wrote: >>> >>> >>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> herbzet wrote: >>>> >>>>> Herc is a troll who is HAVING A BALL jerking all the "smart guys" > around. >>>> >>>> Or not. Herc is a paranoid schizophrenic, and subject to a variety of >>>> delusions. >>> >>> None of which implies that he is not also a troll. >>> >>>> What isn't clear is whether this Cantor stuff is a >>>> conventional misunderstanding, or yet another delusion. >>> >>> It's the same old tired Cantor troll b.s. >> >> I didn't realise before how long this has been going on for. >> >> But I don't think he's a troll - he appears to have a genuine belief >> that the world's mathematicians have got this wrong. If it's a >> conventional misunderstanding, he might yet be persuaded that he is >> mistaken. > > Personally I can't see this ever happening. When I started off with Herc > (years ago), it seemed like he was just making a simple mistake, and so it > should be easy enough to show where this mistake was. (And indeed it is > easy in a mathematical sense...) > > As I went further, I realised Herc knows nothing of normal mathematical > definitions (like um.. like the ones used in Cantor's proofs which he is > discussing), and nothing of mathematical reasoning (proofs starting from > definitions etc.). Also he has his own unclear (contradictory maybe?) > definitions for words he uses. So obviously a bit more work than I first > thought! :) > > Still, I thought if I break everything down into smaller and smaller steps, > explain exactly all the definitions involved, get Herc to clarify his own > definitions to make them precise etc., then I could still get him to realise > he's mistaken. > > But there is a much more basic problem - Herc actually refuses to engage in > "normal mathematical dialog". What I mean is that if you and I discussed > something, and I didn't understand a step in your proof, I'd point out what > I didn't understand, and you'd go away and expand the proof until I was > happy. Similarly, if I used a vague term, you could ask me to clarify it, > and I would break it down into well understood basic notions, quantifiers, > etc., and we'd move on... Neither of us would be offended by the process or > think we were being insulted, it's just business as usual for communicating > mathematics. > > Actually, I've never really thought of this as a "mathematical" skill, as > I've always thought of mathematics as being the interesting stuff we do on > top of all that. It's a basic skill which I'm sure I had around the age of > 10 (once I'd read simple proofs like the infinitude of the primes etc.), > although clearly at that age I didn't understand many definitions. > > Anyway, it's to be expected that posters won't all have the same level of > knowledge of working definitions, which is why we have "normal mathematical > dialog" to get along! I believe it's impossible to "talk maths" with > someone who simply refuses to engage in this behaviour. > > This includes Herc - I don't believe he will ever respond to a request to > clarify something into simpler terms. (Maybe some people's brains just > don't work in that analytic way?, and so they don't understand the need for > it?) And if you suggest a precise definition for something vague Herc is > saying, he will neither confirm nor deny that that is what he meant. (He > may even scold you for introducing irrelevent factors into the argument, and > suggest you should just ask him to explain, but if you do that of course you > won't get much of a clarification!) > > So what will Herc actually do if you follow my earlier idea of explaining in > greater and greater detail, asking for clarifications, refusing to go along > with vague confusing terminology until it is clarified and so on? [I > thought that surely if I did this thoroughly enough, Herc would have NO > CHOICE but to agree where he was wrong, or at least he would have to reply > in such a way that it was obvious to himself and others that he was not able > to answer the questions and support his claims.] > > The answer is that Herc will just ignore all your efforts and respond with > something vague, unrelated to the detail of your postings. E.g. he will > ignore your questions and ask you to "go away and work out all the possible > antidiagonals", or something. Perhaps he will write a piece at the end of > your post telling you where YOU are going wrong, and repeat his demand that > you answer some ambiguous or irrelevent question. (And yes, with enough > persistence he will become abusive.) What he WILL NOT do is respond > meaningfully to any requests for mathematical clarification! Later on he'll > start another thread using the same unclear terminology, and nothing will > have moved on. That seems a pretty good summing up of Herc's approach, and not only in discussions about mathematics. I've had the same response in discussions about his claimed ability to 'channel' answers to questions, and about his belief that his thoughts are being broadcast and are audible to those around him. I suppose one could consider the similarity of response as some evidence of a similar underlying cause - that is, that Herc's belief that Cantor is wrong is a delusion of grandeur (Herc's right, world's mathematicians wrong), rather than a misunderstanding. His belief that he is "Adam" is another delusion of grandeur. I wonder whether the same explanation applies to TomTom in this thread about special relativity: <http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/3cd6e54c1619c2f5/82b113b832297687> which is another example of someone who refuses to be pinned down. > > Do you count JSH? I don't know him. I've looked up a few posts, but not enough to form a view. Sylvia
From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 22:25
On 23/06/2010 10:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 22/06/2010 4:49 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >> IN FACT >> >> 3 It takes 10^x reals to list every permutation of digits x digits >> wide >> So with infinite reals you can list Every permutation of digits >> infinite digits wide. > > That's just an assertion. Let's see your proof. You might think it's > obvious, but in Maths, obvious doesn't count. > > Sylvia. Are you going to ignore this Herc? Let's see the colour of your money. If you can prove it, do so. Sylvia. |