CANTOR'S PROOF: An AD(n) =/= L(n,n) -> An AD(n) =/= L(n,n)
in [Logic]
|
Prev: SCI.MATH - "You thought Infinity was BIG? .... this is SOOOO BIG you can't count them!"
Next: Why Can You Negate a Decision but Not a Set & The Problems with {}
From: George Greene on 20 Jun 2010 13:44 On Jun 20, 6:19 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Actually George's formula is not equivalent to mine, his doesn't work! > > Diag = 0.500000... > George's_Anti_Diag = 0.499999... > > Well done George, way to construct a new number! It is still a DIFFERENT digit-sequence, DUMBASS. This is not fundamentally about numerical bases and representation anyway. It's about subsets.
From: |-|ercules on 20 Jun 2010 13:50 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > On Jun 20, 6:19 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Actually George's formula is not equivalent to mine, his doesn't work! >> >> Diag = 0.500000... >> George's_Anti_Diag = 0.499999... >> >> Well done George, way to construct a new number! > > It is still a DIFFERENT digit-sequence, DUMBASS. > This is not fundamentally about numerical bases and representation > anyway. > It's about subsets. So making dumb choices is a good thing? Like your anti-diagonal formula, WHOOPS YOU SNIPPED IT! Let's go back a post.... >> ACTUALLY, >> AD(n) = 9 - L(n,n) There it is. Great anti-diagonal formula George, much better than (L(n,n)+1) mod 9 You going to keep using it? Or you going to admit you're a fool twice in one thread!! Herc
From: |-|ercules on 20 Jun 2010 13:52 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > On Jun 20, 3:07 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Here is proof that George will argue against any valid point >> and replace it with an equivalent rewording for no reason. > > The fact that somebody does this one time does not imply that it > generally happens. > 1 instance IS NOT a proof of the general case, DUMBASS. > 1 instance is only good for DISproving generalizations. The ONLY reason you're admitting fault here, is because admitting to giving an EQUIVALENT formula is better than admitting your formula was WRONG. Very shallow and very obvious. Herc
From: George Greene on 20 Jun 2010 13:58 On Jun 20, 6:19 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Here is proof that George will argue against any valid point > > and replace it with an equivalent rewording for no reason. There IS A GOOD reason, dumbass. "mod" is a lot more complicated than minus. > > Actually George's formula is not equivalent to mine, his doesn't work! YOURS DOESN'T WORK EITHER, DIPSHIT, if this is what you mean by "work"! And it is refuted by THE SAME example! > > Diag = 0.500000... > George's_Anti_Diag = 0.499999... > > Well done George, way to construct a new number! And if YOU had STARTED with Diag = .49999999999999999999999..., then YOUR method would've yielded H_anti-diag= .50000000000000000000..... THE EXACT SAME problem, if you think these are the same. Just because they add up to the same thing doesn't mean they are the same DIGITS, DUMBASS.
From: |-|ercules on 20 Jun 2010 14:00
"George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > On Jun 20, 6:19 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Here is proof that George will argue against any valid point >> > and replace it with an equivalent rewording for no reason. > > There IS A GOOD reason, dumbass. > "mod" is a lot more complicated than minus. > >> >> Actually George's formula is not equivalent to mine, his doesn't work! > > YOURS DOESN'T WORK EITHER, DIPSHIT, if this is what you mean by > "work"! > And it is refuted by THE SAME example! > >> >> Diag = 0.500000... >> George's_Anti_Diag = 0.499999... >> >> Well done George, way to construct a new number! > > And if YOU had STARTED with > Diag = .49999999999999999999999..., then YOUR method would've yielded > H_anti-diag= .50000000000000000000..... > Sheesh is egg on my face. I told you I can't make an error, I said they were equivalent(ly bad) and I was right all along. Herc |