Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: Poker Joker on 2 Oct 2006 20:11 "Tonico" <Tonicopm(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1159644048.194388.236080(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > Poker Joker wrote: > > ........nonsenses and rather weird attacks...... > > >> So you think a process that takes all reals can produce one that isn't >> in the set of all reals is possible? > > No, I don't...do you? And what process are you talking about? So far > you've only mentioned the rather huge nonsensical mumbo-jumbo "if a > list [sic] contains all the reals then trying to build a real that is > not there...blah-blah"... If you can't understand that's not my problem. > .And if the natural number 4 were a multiple > of 3 then Moscow would be Rwanda's capital city: from a false statement > ANYTHING can be deduced. What? That there can be a list [sic] > containing all the reals? Prove it. I can prove, mathematically and not > with ranting, that it can't be so You obviously don't understand the discussion. >> Wait, I get it. You want to use the consequences of having such >> a process to prove that there is such a process. Now I understand >> your logic. > > Well, it's refreshing to know you're understanding something at least > and at last, even if it is something produced by your own imagination. Like I said, you obviously don't understand the discussion. >> > IF you actually gave >> > a complete "list" of the reals, uh?? By your """logic""" then, it is >> > IMPOSIBLE to rebuke >> > anything you say, because IF it is true then the rebuttal will have, OF >> > COURSE!, to be flawed....great! >> >> It took you this long to figure that out? Of course, you can't stop >> thinking that the conclusion stands on its own. So how could you >> see the flaw? > > Hehe...oh well: just another crank. Wanna buy a bridge with a river > under it? > > Tonio >
From: Poker Joker on 2 Oct 2006 20:20 "Arturo Magidin" <magidin(a)math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message news:efp1lh$25uv$1(a)agate.berkeley.edu... > In article <LWOTg.5030$3E2.3848(a)tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, > Poker Joker <Poker(a)wi.rr.com> wrote: >> >>"Arturo Magidin" <magidin(a)math.berkeley.edu> wrote in message >>news:efmf1m$c88$1(a)agate.berkeley.edu... >> >>>>So if considering a single specific list >>>>shows a flaw, then looking at ANY (ALL of them) list doesn't >>>>help. >> >>> .. since no flaw has been exhibited by looking at any specific >>> list (and "specific" in this case must mean explicit and specific, not >>> a putative list with putative properties whose existence cannot be >>> established a priori; otherwise, we might just say "take a list for >>> which the argument does not work", which is of course nonsense), >>> discussions about this are a waste of time. >> >>First you obfuscate the discussion by saying that specific cases >>don't matter. > > No. FIRST, I presented a proof that holds for an arbitrary list. Then > YOU obfuscated the matter by pretending your own shortcomings in > understanding basic mathematical terminology somehow invalidates that > proof. > >> Now you seem to imply they do, > > Still your own shortcomings being projected. > > If you have a proof that holds for an arbitrary list, in which the > ONLY property of the list being used is the fact that it is a list, > then consideration of particular specific cases is immaterial. You are > free to check particular specific cases if it helps in YOUR > understanding (or lack thereof) of the proof. > > If you can somehow exhibit a specific (explicit) instance in which the > argument does not hold, then you would have shown that what was > presented was an invalid argument. But in order to do so, one must > exhibit a specific COUNTEREXAMPLE. > > In the case of a "proof" that attempted to show that for every real > number x there exists a real number y such that x*y = 1, you would exhibit > x=0, run through the proof (perhaps) and point out exactly which step > is invalid with that specific number. That's fine. > > On the other hand, if we had a proof that for every real number x > there exists a real number y such that x+y = 0, then a "particular > case" would not be "let x be some real number, which might or might > exist, which has no additive inverse; then your proof is wrong because > your proof would imply it has, contradicting the fact that x does not > have an additive inverse." At that point, your "particular case" is > nothing but hot air and irrelevancy. > >> but in this discussion >>they still don't because of the obfustated argument that somehow >>they don't. >> >>After all, you never showed how step #2 isn't self-referential > > After all, you never showed you understood what step 2 really was; > your claims that it was "self-referential" were hollow and as such > they need not be addressed. The burden of proof is on you, since I > have discharged mine by offering a valid proof. I see no proof here. What am I to make of your statement that you did? You are not sincere. You make all sorts of claims. You back it with nothing. >>in >>the case that the process input is all real numbers. > > You would have to establish that such an input is possible, given the > proof that was shown. You haven't. All you are doing is spinning your > wheels. > > >>Now I understand how someone can reject a fields medal. > > No doubt, your understanding of that is about as accurate as your > understanding of Cantor's proof or of mathematical arguments in > general. I wouldn't try to borrow against its value. I understand it much better than you think.
From: Poker Joker on 2 Oct 2006 20:24 "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1159814263.984188.257200(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Poker Joker wrote: >> I never tried to refute the uncountability of the reals. > > Good. And you've not correctly refuted diagonal arguments that prove > the uncountability of the reals. > >> I don't need to respond to you about Arturo. > > Okay, you don't have such a need. Meanwhile, my point stands that your > original remarks about Arturo's post are incorrect. I asked a question. According to you, the question is incorrect. That's cute.
From: Poker Joker on 2 Oct 2006 20:25 "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-799E10.12290030092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <E2uTg.1859$3E2.1096(a)tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, > "Poker Joker" <Poker(a)wi.rr.com> wrote: > >> "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:virgil-663D2E.01034230092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> >> > Argumenta ad hominem reveal the inadequacy of the arguer. >> >> You've proven that time and again. > > Glad PJ has finally admitted his sins. You mean the terrible thoughts I have about your abilities being limited to acting like a three-year-old? Yep, I confess its true.
From: Poker Joker on 2 Oct 2006 20:27
"Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-B233B9.12324230092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <93uTg.1860$3E2.1673(a)tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, > "Poker Joker" <Poker(a)wi.rr.com> wrote: > >> "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:virgil-4F0272.01064530092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> >> > Is that is the best PJ can do? Personal attacks are the last refuge of >> > the incompetent. >> >> That's been your ONLY attack. > > I have, to the satisfaction of anyone competent in mathematics, repeated > other's proofs that, despite PJ's objections, no list of reals can > contain all reals. The NG is hardly "anyone competent in mathematics" that's why Virgil is so well accepted. |