Prev: Question for Aatu Koskensilta
Next: Godels incompleteness theorem are invalid ie illegitimate
From: |-|ercules on 17 Jun 2010 02:04
"George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote
> On Jun 16, 10:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> This list has 3 digits (in order) of pi.
>>
>> 3
>> 31
>> 314
>>
>> Yours does not.
>
> Well, you DID NOT SAY "contains (in order)"
> in your original formulations -- you JUST said "contains".
> But it still doesn't matter.
> You can still do this in a ONE-element list.
> You can also still do it with a list consisting of ONLY FINITE
> strings.
> So the mere fact that a list has what you claim to want it to have
> here
> SIMPLY DOES NOT *MEAN* anything, fool.
>

What about this:

There are 3 digits of pi (in order) below this line.

___________________________________

314
From: |-|ercules on 17 Jun 2010 20:35
> What about this:
>
> There are 3 digits of pi (in order) below this line.
>
> ___________________________________
>
> 314


I'll take failure to respond that the trivial statement above is agreed to be true.

What about this:

There are 3 digits of pi (in order) below this line.

_______________________________________

3
31
314

From: George Greene on 18 Jun 2010 21:13
On Jun 17, 2:04 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> What about this:
>
> There are 3 digits of pi (in order) below this line.
>
> ___________________________________
>
> 314

Yes, there are; so??
From: |-|ercules on 18 Jun 2010 21:33
"George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote
> On Jun 17, 2:04 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What about this:
>>
>> There are 3 digits of pi (in order) below this line.
>>
>> ___________________________________
>>
>> 314
>
> Yes, there are; so??

So we are communicating again! Who needs "contain" when we all understand
"below this line"!

Herc
From: George Greene on 20 Jun 2010 13:47
On Jun 18, 9:33 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> There are 3 digits of pi (in order) below this line.
>
> >> ___________________________________
>
> >> 314
>
> > Yes, there are; so??
>
> So we are communicating again!  Who needs "contain" when we all understand
> "below this line"!

What we DON'T understand is the way YOU ABUSE "all" and the way you
want to say
"up to infinite length" when you actually MEAN "up to every/each/any
FINITE length".
These ARE NOT the same!
But you insist on speaking as though they were.
The fact that every finite prefix of an infinite string is on a list
DOES NOT MEAN that the infinite string ITSELF is on the list, and
it therefore does NOT mean that you even CAN SAY that "every digit of
pi up to INFINITELY many places is <verb or preposition of your
choice> the list."

"On" would just be WRONG but "contained in" would be NEW WITH YOU.


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Question for Aatu Koskensilta
Next: Godels incompleteness theorem are invalid ie illegitimate