Cantor's Diagonal?
in [Math]
|
From: zuhair on 7 Feb 2010 17:04 On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > On Feb 7, 3:44 pm, zuhair <zaljo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The "diagonal argument" IS the general argument. They are the same > > > argument, if you aren't purposely dishonest or obtuse. > > > No there is no purposeful dishonesty as you suspect or anything like > > that, I will look to your responses above an try to understand them > > step by step and report back my doubts if there is any, If I see that > > you managed to prove your claim, > > To *your satisfaction*. The "claim" (in fact a trivial observation) > has been established long before me and it is clear and patently > obvious to plenty of people in this thread alone. The problem is that > *you* don't get it, so kindly put the approrpiate qualifier there. > It's not whether or not I can "prove [my] claim", it is whether or not > I manage to hammer it through *your* thick skull. Yea my skull is indeed think, well it is useful, it protect my brain from dangerous hammering. > > -- > Arturo Magidin
From: Arturo Magidin on 7 Feb 2010 17:05 On Feb 7, 4:01 pm, zuhair <zaljo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No, silly. > > Thanks for the complement. You get complements from the axioms of ZF, not from me. To get *compliments*, you're going to have to do better. > Ah, yes, true, the arguments really translates to each other, you were > right as I suspected. "As I suspected"? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Half a dozen times you pontificated on how wrong and "unhumble" I had been with that claim. Do you believe yourself when you say things like that? -- Arturo Magidin
From: zuhair on 7 Feb 2010 17:07 On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > On Feb 7, 3:44 pm, zuhair <zaljo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The "diagonal argument" IS the general argument. They are the same > > > argument, if you aren't purposely dishonest or obtuse. > > > No there is no purposeful dishonesty as you suspect or anything like > > that, I will look to your responses above an try to understand them > > step by step and report back my doubts if there is any, If I see that > > you managed to prove your claim, > > To *your satisfaction*. The "claim" (in fact a trivial observation) > has been established long before me and it is clear and patently > obvious to plenty of people in this thread alone. The problem is that > *you* don't get it, so kindly put the approrpiate qualifier there. > It's not whether or not I can "prove [my] claim", it is whether or not > I manage to hammer it through *your* thick skull. > > -- > Arturo Magidin Thanks, your contribution here is highly appreciated, honestly (skimming the violent wordings and the paranoid suspicions on your side of course), to me what I gained here was not a waste of time. Thanks again. Zuhair
From: zuhair on 7 Feb 2010 17:10 On Feb 7, 5:05 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...(a)member.ams.org> wrote: > On Feb 7, 4:01 pm, zuhair <zaljo...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > No, silly. > > > Thanks for the complement. > > You get complements from the axioms of ZF, not from me. To get > *compliments*, you're going to have to do better. > > > Ah, yes, true, the arguments really translates to each other, you were > > right as I suspected. > > "As I suspected"? Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Half a dozen > times you pontificated on how wrong and "unhumble" I had been with > that claim. Do you believe yourself when you say things like that? > > -- > Arturo Magidin Yes, I already mentioned that explicitly, I said that it is mostly the case that I am wrong, since the other discusser [YOU] is a profession mathematician. Zuhair
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 7 Feb 2010 20:07
"Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> writes: > zuhair <zaljohar(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> On second look, I see that you've mentioned Mike's reply, I overlooked >> that, but still Mike's response is actually a negative one, sorry, I >> thought there is a formal way of proving to arguments to be EXACTLY >> the same, or IDENTICAL, it seem as Mike's said, the grounds are only >> personal. > > Zuhair, with due respect, this is utter bullshit. > > The two arguments are the same in exactly the way that Mike said. > There's nothing "personal" in this regard. > > I'm personally disappointed in your behavior in this exchange. You > seem to desperately want to find controversy where there is none. You > are exhibiting a dollop of intellectual dishonesty here and that is > uncharacteristic. > > I hope that you'll drop this silly line. I see that a later post of his admitted his error. I hadn't read that post before writing this followup. -- Jesse F. Hughes "I often told you of the dangers of hubris, and most importantly of all, I TOLD you that I wanted to change the institution of mathematics worldwide." -- James Harris, on the evils of pride |