CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
in [Logic]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 23 Jun 2010 00:54 On 23/06/2010 2:45 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > On Jun 23, 2:37 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> On 23/06/2010 2:15 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 23, 2:13 pm, Graham Cooper<grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 23, 1:50 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> On 23/06/2010 1:02 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>>> On Jun 23, 12:56 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> On 23/06/2010 12:45 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>>>>> On Jun 23, 12:25 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >> >>>>>>>> You agreed the width of all permutations approached oo >>>>>>>> since the list of reals is considered infinitely long >>>>>>>> your claim is that the limit does not equal the infinite case >> >>>>>>> The width is not in question. What you have failed to prove is that >>>>>>> every permutation can be *listed*. Since that's the core issue in your >>>>>>> entire attack on Cantor, you cannot be allowed to get away with merely >>>>>>> asserting it. Prove it! >> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >> >>>>>> Consider the list of computable reals. >> >>>>>> Let w = the digit width of the largest set >>>>>> of complete permutations >> >>>>>> assume w is finite >>>>>> there are 10 computable copies of the >>>>>> complete permutations of width w >>>>>> each ending in each of digits 0..9 >>>>>> which generates a set larger than width w >>>>>> so finite w cannot be the maximum size >> >>>>>> therefore w is infinite >> >>>>> That w is infinite is, as I said, not in dispute. You still haven't >>>>> proved that the permutations can be *listed*. Not that they exist, not >>>>> that there are inifinitely many of them, not that each number is >>>>> infinitely long, not that zebras have stripes, but that the permutations >>>>> can be *listed*. I'm empahsising the point as much as I can - the issue >>>>> is whether they can be *listed*. >> >>>>> Sylvia. >> >>>> Read the proof again, beginning consider the list of computable reals >> >>>> w is just a variable >> >>>> Herc >> >>> I gave the inductive step for listing permutations >>> the base step is trivial >> >> I can't find it. Perhaps you could give it again. >> >> Sylvia. > > Given a set of complete permutations w digits wide > > eg > > 00 > 01 > 10 > 11 > > make 2 copies and append each of 0,1 > > 00+0 > 01+0 > 10+0 > 11+0 > > 00+1 > 01+1 > 10+1 > 11+1 > > therefore there is no max width of w No doubt. But it still doesn't explain how to list them. You keep harping on about the maximum width, or lack thereof, and I keep agreeing that there is no maximum width. But the issue is how to list them. I'm asking you to prove one thing - that they can be listed - and instead you're proving something completely different. Repeatedly. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 23 Jun 2010 00:57 On 23/06/2010 2:30 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > On Jun 23, 1:02 pm, Graham Cooper<grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 23, 12:56 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 23/06/2010 12:45 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>> On Jun 23, 12:25 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>> 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. >> >>>> You agreed the width of all permutations approached oo >>>> since the list of reals is considered infinitely long >>>> your claim is that the limit does not equal the infinite case >> >>> The width is not in question. What you have failed to prove is that >>> every permutation can be *listed*. Since that's the core issue in your >>> entire attack on Cantor, you cannot be allowed to get away with merely >>> asserting it. Prove it! >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Consider the list of computable reals. >> >> Let w = the digit width of the largest set >> of complete permutations >> >> assume w is finite >> there are 10 computable copies of the >> complete permutations of width w >> each ending in each of digits 0..9 >> which generates a set larger than width w >> so finite w cannot be the maximum size >> >> therefore w is infinite >> >> Herc > > > Where I say a sequence ends in a new > digit I meant that new digit is at position w+1 > appended to the sequence > > Herc And yet another proof that w is infinite when I'm clearly asking for a proof that every permutation can be *listed*. Let me ask this as a direct question - are you of the opinion that infinite length implies listability? Sylvia.
From: Graham Cooper on 23 Jun 2010 01:00 On Jun 23, 2:57 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > On 23/06/2010 2:30 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 23, 1:02 pm, Graham Cooper<grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 23, 12:56 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > >>> On 23/06/2010 12:45 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > >>>> On Jun 23, 12:25 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >>>>> 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. > > >>>> You agreed the width of all permutations approached oo > >>>> since the list of reals is considered infinitely long > >>>> your claim is that the limit does not equal the infinite case > > >>> The width is not in question. What you have failed to prove is that > >>> every permutation can be *listed*. Since that's the core issue in your > >>> entire attack on Cantor, you cannot be allowed to get away with merely > >>> asserting it. Prove it! > > >>> Sylvia. > > >> Consider the list of computable reals. > > >> Let w = the digit width of the largest set > >> of complete permutations > > >> assume w is finite > >> there are 10 computable copies of the > >> complete permutations of width w > >> each ending in each of digits 0..9 > >> which generates a set larger than width w > >> so finite w cannot be the maximum size > > >> therefore w is infinite > > >> Herc > > > Where I say a sequence ends in a new > > digit I meant that new digit is at position w+1 > > appended to the sequence > > > Herc > > And yet another proof that w is infinite when I'm clearly asking for a > proof that every permutation can be *listed*. > > Let me ask this as a direct question - are you of the opinion that > infinite length implies listability? > > Sylvia. Exactly what younare asking. Are you shifting the goals to whether an infinite list exists? Herc You're a nutter Sylvia. I gave a procedure for iterating infinitely wide permutations on a countable list.
From: Graham Cooper on 23 Jun 2010 01:03 On Jun 23, 3:00 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2:57 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > On 23/06/2010 2:30 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > On Jun 23, 1:02 pm, Graham Cooper<grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Jun 23, 12:56 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > >>> On 23/06/2010 12:45 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > >>>> On Jun 23, 12:25 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>> 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. > > > >>>> You agreed the width of all permutations approached oo > > >>>> since the list of reals is considered infinitely long > > >>>> your claim is that the limit does not equal the infinite case > > > >>> The width is not in question. What you have failed to prove is that > > >>> every permutation can be *listed*. Since that's the core issue in your > > >>> entire attack on Cantor, you cannot be allowed to get away with merely > > >>> asserting it. Prove it! > > > >>> Sylvia. > > > >> Consider the list of computable reals. > > > >> Let w = the digit width of the largest set > > >> of complete permutations > > > >> assume w is finite > > >> there are 10 computable copies of the > > >> complete permutations of width w > > >> each ending in each of digits 0..9 > > >> which generates a set larger than width w > > >> so finite w cannot be the maximum size > > > >> therefore w is infinite > > > >> Herc > > > > Where I say a sequence ends in a new > > > digit I meant that new digit is at position w+1 > > > appended to the sequence > > > > Herc > > > And yet another proof that w is infinite when I'm clearly asking for a > > proof that every permutation can be *listed*. > > > Let me ask this as a direct question - are you of the opinion that > > infinite length implies listability? > > > Sylvia. > > Exactly what younare asking. > > Are you shifting the goals to whether an infinite list exists? > > Herc > > You're a nutter Sylvia. I gave a procedure for iterating > infinitely wide permutations on a countable list. iPhones are difficult to type > > You're a nutter Sylvia. I gave a procedure for iterating > infinitely wide permutations on a countable list. Exactly what you are asking ....... Herc
From: herbzet on 23 Jun 2010 01:51
George Greene wrote: > Graham Cooper wrote: No he didn't - Nam did. You have been posting to the news long enough to know how to edit a reply, a trifling task which you screw up consistently. > > > Five-letter insult or not, he's not just opposing Cantor's > > > Theorem and he's not just opposing the whole FOL proof machinery: > > You are just lying. HE IS SO TOO opposing the whole FOL proof > machinery. Misfire. You have failed to parse Nam correctly. You and he are in agreement on this point. -- hz |