CANTOR DISPROOF <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< [Math]

Prev: Anders, Ebihara Re: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #180; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: combinations of additive and multiplicative creation: Dirac's new radioactivities Chapt 5 #181; ATOM TOTALITY

From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 22:45

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

if you have another answer to the width of all permutations
let's hear it

An ANSWER as in a QUANTITY not an EXCUSE

herc

From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 22:56

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.

From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 23:02

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

From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 23:50

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.

From: Nam Nguyen on 22 Jun 2010 23:57

George Greene wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2:49 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.

Actually the above is what I said, not Graham Cooper. Are you saying
that I was lying?