CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
in [Logic]
|
From: |-|ercules on 28 Jun 2010 23:57 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote >> You haven't commented on the difference between induction over a single >> data structure >> and induction over numerous data structures. >> > > I have questioned whether what you're doing is induction. P(n) -> P(n+1) > is the result of an inductive proof, not the proof itself. > > Sylvia. Here's a story that tells of the difference that's more your level. You and I start a landscaping business Herc And Syl's Landscaping Ad Infinitium I handle all the mowing, and you do the fencing. We get a call from Mr Fenceme and Mrs Mowme Blockheads. We drive to the property which appears to be divided into 2 blocks, both infinite rectangular lawns. On one block, you start doing the fencing for Mr Fenceme, completing the perimeters of larger and larger concentric rectangular paddocks. I get to the mowing for Mrs Mowme, completing larger and larger rectangular mown lawn areas, each building upon the earlier smaller rectangular lawn area. Being a man, I'm well on my way to mowing the whole lawn. Because you're a woman, you never ever come close to fencing the entire lawn! ;-) Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 29 Jun 2010 00:39 On 29/06/2010 12:18 PM, herbzet wrote: > > > Sylvia Else wrote: >> The Raven wrote: >> >>> Sylvia and all the other followers of this thread, could you please keep it >>> out of aus.tv and take it back to sci.math? It's off topic to aus.tv. >>> >>> Please (I'm asking politely) :-) >> >> I can't stop Herc posting them to aus.tv in the first place, and if I >> remove groups from my replies, he just puts them back again. > > Oh, you poor dear! Oh, you poor, poor dear thing! Being *forced* > by that wicked Herc to crosspost to ngs that have no interest in > this topic at all! > > You poor, poor thing, being *forced* into this discourteous behaviour > by that wicked Herc, who's not really wicked because he's so kuh-RAZY, > the poor dear thing. What can a reasonable person do, other than > suggest that dozens or perhaps hundreds of other people go to the > trouble of filtering out *your* off-topic noise? > > Let me help you out, darling. > > 1) Set your own filter to kill any post with aus.tv in the "Newsgroups" > field, and inform Herc that you won't see any such posts. > > 2) If your newsreader does not allow filtering on that field (I know > mine certainly doesn't) just be your own filter -- announce firmly > that you will not respond to posts with aus.tv in the Newsgroups > field. > > Like this: > > I will not wittingly respond to posts about foundations of math > that are posted to the aus.tv newsgroup, as that is just off-topic > spam to them. I will not indulge Herc's narcissistic desire to > keep his name in front of his countrymen's eyes. > > Herc may find me in sci.math if he wishes to converse with me. > > See how easy it is? All the people at aus.tv will not find it necessary > to forward your posts to abuse(a)individual.net , prepending the sentence > "Off-topic for aus.tv" to the body of the forwarded post, and otherwise > following the guidelines at > > http://individual.net/faq.php#5.5 . Let's see - does it mention replies to off-topic posts? No. OK, technically, a reply is itself a post, but it's the initial off-topic posting that the nuisance, not the replies. I'm reading this thread in sci.math. I'm not going to engage in a process of manual filtering based on the newsgroups that are being posted to just to appease those who can't be bothered to kill the thread of Herc's initial posting. But what I can do, if you like, is to killfile you. Then you'll know that there's really no point in your posting the kind of comment above, and in consequence won't feel any need so to do, thus saving you much time. Sylvia.
From: Sylvia Else on 29 Jun 2010 00:45 On 29/06/2010 1:57 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote >>> You haven't commented on the difference between induction over a single >>> data structure >>> and induction over numerous data structures. >>> >> >> I have questioned whether what you're doing is induction. P(n) -> >> P(n+1) is the result of an inductive proof, not the proof itself. >> >> Sylvia. > > > > Here's a story that tells of the difference that's more your level. > > You and I start a landscaping business Herc And Syl's Landscaping Ad > Infinitium > > I handle all the mowing, and you do the fencing. > > We get a call from Mr Fenceme and Mrs Mowme Blockheads. > > We drive to the property which appears to be divided into 2 blocks, both > infinite rectangular lawns. > > On one block, you start doing the fencing for Mr Fenceme, completing the > perimeters of larger and larger concentric > rectangular paddocks. > > I get to the mowing for Mrs Mowme, completing larger and larger > rectangular mown lawn areas, each building > upon the earlier smaller rectangular lawn area. > > Being a man, I'm well on my way to mowing the whole lawn. > > Because you're a woman, you never ever come close to fencing the entire > lawn! ;-) > Herc > Since neither of us makes the smallest dent in our respective infinite tasks, you cannot meaningfully say which of us is closer to completing it. What has that to do with induction anyway? Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 29 Jun 2010 01:03 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote ... > On 29/06/2010 1:57 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote >>>> You haven't commented on the difference between induction over a single >>>> data structure >>>> and induction over numerous data structures. >>>> >>> >>> I have questioned whether what you're doing is induction. P(n) -> >>> P(n+1) is the result of an inductive proof, not the proof itself. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> >> >> Here's a story that tells of the difference that's more your level. >> >> You and I start a landscaping business Herc And Syl's Landscaping Ad >> Infinitium >> >> I handle all the mowing, and you do the fencing. >> >> We get a call from Mr Fenceme and Mrs Mowme Blockheads. >> >> We drive to the property which appears to be divided into 2 blocks, both >> infinite rectangular lawns. >> >> On one block, you start doing the fencing for Mr Fenceme, completing the >> perimeters of larger and larger concentric >> rectangular paddocks. >> >> I get to the mowing for Mrs Mowme, completing larger and larger >> rectangular mown lawn areas, each building >> upon the earlier smaller rectangular lawn area. >> >> Being a man, I'm well on my way to mowing the whole lawn. >> >> Because you're a woman, you never ever come close to fencing the entire >> lawn! ;-) >> Herc >> > > Since neither of us makes the smallest dent in our respective infinite > tasks, you cannot meaningfully say which of us is closer to completing it. Wrong! the limit of mown lawn area as mowing time->oo is infinity. However, infinitely many fence sizes all have finite perimeters. > > What has that to do with induction anyway? > > Sylvia. You can prove a paint algorithm covers the screen using induction, just like mowing above, just like proving a property for all natural numbers, or all digit positions. Herc
From: herbzet on 29 Jun 2010 01:04
Sylvia Else wrote: > But what I can do, if you like, is to killfile you. Suit yourself, darling. |