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: 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