Cantor Confusion
in [Math]
|
Prev: Pi berechnen: Ramanujan oder BBP
Next: Group Theory
From: Virgil on 3 Oct 2006 14:36 In article <1159888403.008070.216960(a)h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, "Albrecht" <albstorz(a)gmx.de> wrote: > Any proof which shows that infinity is incomprehensible isn't trivial. > It must be a proof, which is working on the limit of the knowable. Any proof that what is comprehended is incomprehensible is flawed.
From: Virgil on 3 Oct 2006 14:39 In article <1159889764.220128.206020(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Albrecht" <albstorz(a)gmx.de> wrote: > Dave L. Renfro wrote: .. > Cantor argues that you must not have the limit. But with the same idea > you can e.g. construct a kind of an diagonal (natural) number of any > list of natural numbers (this idea is from Russell Easterly). Anyone who takes his lead from Russell Easterly on what goes on in mathematics is in deep trouble.
From: Poker Joker on 3 Oct 2006 18:55 "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-7CD74E.20471202102006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <PFhUg.27934$8_5.11593(a)tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, > "Poker Joker" <Poker(a)wi.rr.com> wrote: > >> "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:virgil-343665.12274830092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> > In article <NNtTg.1856$3E2.504(a)tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, >> > "Poker Joker" <Poker(a)wi.rr.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:virgil-988F09.00544830092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> >> >> >> > It's not what Joker doesn't know that hurts him, its what he knows >> >> > that >> >> > ain't so. >> >> >> >> Virgil is jealous because he doesn't know anything other than to >> >> get flame-wars going that allow him to use his talent: acting like >> >> a three-year-old. >> > >> > I might be jealous of someone with some mathematical talent, but not of >> > someone whose only visible talent is personal attacks. >> >> So you are your worst fan. > > PJ gets things as wrong as possible, as usual. PJ gets things from Virgil.
From: Poker Joker on 3 Oct 2006 18:56 "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-52B960.20492402102006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <CHhUg.27967$8_5.24503(a)tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, > "Poker Joker" <Poker(a)wi.rr.com> wrote: > >> "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:virgil-665CA8.12340030092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> > In article <Y3uTg.1861$3E2.1791(a)tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, >> > "Poker Joker" <Poker(a)wi.rr.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:virgil-A44A2E.01004230092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> >> > In article <YDmTg.25600$QT.1073(a)tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, >> >> > "Poker Joker" <Poker(a)wi.rr.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> >> news:virgil-9C1609.21071129092006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > It is in mathematics. Once a proof for any list is established, >> >> >> > it >> >> >> > covers every list. >> >> >> >> >> >> This list doesn't contain 4: >> >> >> >> >> >> 1 >> >> >> 2 >> >> >> 3 >> >> >> >> >> >> Proof: >> >> >> >> >> >> The 1st number isn't 4. >> >> >> The 2nd number isn't 4. >> >> >> The 3rd number isn't 4. >> >> >> That list does't contain 4 >> >> >> >> >> >> Therefore, Virgil believes that in mathematics, no >> >> >> list contains 4. >> >> > >> >> > As it is PJ's proof, it must be PJ's theorem. >> >> > I lay no claim to other's works. >> >> >> >> How could you? You've never done any work. >> > >> > Never claimed to have done any. But I can and have appreciated the good >> > work of others, which PJ does not. >> >> Virgil is the jerk who admits to doing nothing > > That I do not claim to have done anything does not imply that I have not > done anything. > > That PJ does not understand that is a mark of his own arrogance. Virgil proves PJ's case.
From: Poker Joker on 3 Oct 2006 18:57
"Virgil" <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:virgil-C9AC49.20550702102006(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com... >>I'm sure you still won't understand. > > The context of "list" in which "any list" occured required such lists > to be functions from the naturals to the reals, which The Poker's > pseudolists are not. > > Ergo, the Poker is committing the fallacy of the straw man, which echos > the contents of his head quite well. Virgil obviously can't understand. |