Give me ONE digit position of any real that isn't computable up to that digit position!
in [Logic]
|
Prev: THE PROBLEM WITH THE NATURAL PHILOSOPHY ALLIANCE
Next: No, dumbass, nobody is going to give you "one digit position of any real
From: Barb Knox on 7 Jun 2010 03:59 In article <873c8lFpmfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Barb Knox" <see(a)sig.below> wrote [SNIP] > I did find it interesting all mathematicians had tragic lives Thaat may be interesting, but it's false. [snip] > the > unwillingness of sci.math to use their probability theory to evaluate the > natural Vs unnatural coincidence phenomena my life entails You have not had significantly more interesting coincidences in your life than anyone else has. You *have* noticed quite a few interesting things about your life; you have *not* noticed the very many more uninteresting things about your life -- that's just a fact about human cognition. Elementary Bayesian analysis of your situation would take into account the facts that: (1) The vast majority of people who think that they are very very special or have some mission from god or are themselves god are in fact wrong, and are often delusional. (2) The majority of people who get committed to a psychiatric institution for schizophrenic delusions are in fact delusional. > has led to 8 years of sonic torture so far. Oh yes, and (3) One of the more common sorts of delusion is delusion about being persecuted. -- --------------------------- | BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk | B B aa rrr b | | BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit, | B B a a r b b | altum videtur. | BBB aa a r bbb | -----------------------------
From: herbzet on 7 Jun 2010 06:38 |-|ercules wrote: > "herbzet" wrote ... > > |-|ercules wrote: > >> I want to hear mathematicians explain why the nonexistence of a box that contains > >> the numbers of the boxes that don't contain their own number means that higher > >> infinity exists. > > > > Who said that? Cite, please. > > you did. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Because the most widely used proof of uncountable infinity is the > > contradiction of a bijection from N to P(N), which is analagous to > > the missing box question. > > Perhaps so, but why do you ask? > > -- > hz > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Then again, perhaps not. -- hz
From: herbzet on 7 Jun 2010 06:59 |-|ercules wrote: > "herbzet" wrote ... > > |-|ercules wrote: > >> "herbzet" wrote ... > >> > |-|ercules wrote: > > > >> >> I want to hear mathematicians explain why the nonexistence of a box that contains > >> >> the numbers of the boxes that don't contain their own number means that higher > >> >> infinity exists. > >> > > >> > Who said that? Cite, please. > >> > >> you did. > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > Because the most widely used proof of uncountable infinity is the > >> > contradiction of a bijection from N to P(N), which is analagous to > >> > the missing box question. > >> > >> Perhaps so, but why do you ask? > >> > >> -- > >> hz > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > Then again, perhaps not. > > you can crawl back under your rock until the box question goes away. What question was that now? You keep moving the goalposts on us. Perhaps if you can manage to phrase the question with some rigor, it is possible that you would receive a concise reply. -- hz
From: herbzet on 7 Jun 2010 08:19 |-|ercules wrote: > "herbzet" wrote ... > > |-|ercules wrote: > >> "herbzet" wrote ... > >> > |-|ercules wrote: > >> >> "herbzet" wrote ... > >> >> > |-|ercules wrote: > >> >> >> "herbzet" wrote ... > >> >> >> > |-|ercules wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I want to hear mathematicians explain why the nonexistence of a box that contains > >> >> >> >> the numbers of the boxes that don't contain their own number means that higher > >> >> >> >> infinity exists. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Who said that? Cite, please. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> you did. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Because the most widely used proof of uncountable infinity is the > >> >> >> > contradiction of a bijection from N to P(N), which is analagous to > >> >> >> > the missing box question. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Perhaps so, but why do you ask? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> hz > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> >> > > >> >> > Then again, perhaps not. > >> >> > >> >> you can crawl back under your rock until the box question goes away. > >> > > >> > What question was that now? You keep moving the goalposts on us. > >> > > >> > Perhaps if you can manage to phrase the question with some rigor, > >> > it is possible that you would receive a concise reply. > >> > > >> > >> ok, we have boxes, all numbered from 1, 2, 3... and so on indefinitely. > >> > >> inside the boxes are some physical representations of natural numbers, > >> any finite or infinite amount of them, composed of 1 of each of 1, 2, 3... > >> > >> can any of the boxes contain only the numbers of all the boxes that don't contain > >> their own numbers? No. > >> what can you deduce from this? Among the infinite(!) number of statements I could *validly* deduce from this statement, I could deduce that (1) If there is an infinite set S, then there is a set S' of greater cardinality. -- hz
From: MoeBlee on 7 Jun 2010 18:17
On Jun 7, 2:48 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The box that contains the numbers of the boxes > that don't contain their own number is never there Would you please get it right? It's stated correctly as follows: The [purported] box that contains ALL AND ONLY the numbers of the boxes that don't contain their own number. MoeBlee |