CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
in [Logic]
|
From: |-|ercules on 29 Jun 2010 01:09 "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote > You can prove a paint algorithm covers the screen using induction i.e. flood fill Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 29 Jun 2010 01:32 On 29/06/2010 3:09 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> You can prove a paint algorithm covers the screen using induction > > i.e. flood fill > > Herc Last time I checked, screens were not infinite in size, and flood fill is commenced using a finite sized dot. Either way, the fact that some things can be proved by induction does not imply that a particular proof is by induction. Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 29 Jun 2010 01:46 "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote > On 29/06/2010 3:09 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote >>> You can prove a paint algorithm covers the screen using induction >> >> i.e. flood fill >> >> Herc > > Last time I checked, screens were not infinite in size, and flood fill > is commenced using a finite sized dot. hardly relevant > > Either way, the fact that some things can be proved by induction does > not imply that a particular proof is by induction. > > Sylvia. Induction is a description of a method for proving a property is true for case N+1 given that case N is true. And showing a base step is true, usually N=1. My and your examples fall under that class of descriptions. So do the mowing and fencing algorithms. Fencing is equivalent to your increasing sizes of lists. Mowing is equivalent to my increasing widths of digits along an infinite digit sequence. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 29 Jun 2010 01:50 "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote > Fencing is equivalent to your increasing sizes of lists. > > Mowing is equivalent to my increasing widths of digits along an infinite digit sequence. I hope my distinction holds because every time I post to sci.math people will say "finished mowing that lawn yet Herc?"!! Herc
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 29 Jun 2010 08:33
Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> writes: > 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. Frankly, Sylvia, I agree with others. You've been politely asked to drop aus.tv from replies. This takes less than 15 seconds of editing the Newsgroup field. It is a reasonable request. -- "I am one of those annoying people who is so good at so many things that I can't seem to pick one. I can seriously party. But I can also sit for long periods concentrating profusely on some problem or other."-- James S Harris: Serious partier, profuse concentrator. |