Give me ONE digit position of any real that isn't computable up to that digit position!
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Give me ONE digit position of any real that isn't computable up to that digit position!
Next: Give me ONE digit position of any real that isn't computable up to that digit position!
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 15:53 "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> 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? >> >> what can you deduce from this? > > Is the following statement TRUE or FALSE? > > << The fact that there is no box that contains the numbers of all the boxes >> > << that don't contain their own number proves that higher infinities exist. >> > > Amusingly, the FIRST reply to THIS question (from your OP "SCI.MATH POLL - > uncountable infinity") was "It's false" -- by GEORGE GREENE -- which also > came along with a detailed explanation. > > It appears that you didn't have the courtesy to even respond to his post. > > Is your excuse that you're too much of a LOON to be held to ordinary > standards of debate? Will you now fail to respond to his reply > because you're too technologically challenged to be able to LOOK > IT UP? > > Are you sure that you've asked the question you really want answered? > > Because you've already been answered, in detail, by several people. > > -- > hz Well George answered false, and you answered true. Unless you are saying 'greater cardinality than an infinite set' means something different to higher infinity. Herc
From: herbzet on 8 Jun 2010 01:26
|-|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? > >> > >> what can you deduce from this? > > > > Is the following statement TRUE or FALSE? > > > > << The fact that there is no box that contains the numbers of all the boxes >> > > << that don't contain their own number proves that higher infinities exist. >> > > > > Amusingly, the FIRST reply to THIS question (from your OP "SCI.MATH POLL - > > uncountable infinity") was "It's false" -- by GEORGE GREENE -- which also > > came along with a detailed explanation. > > > > It appears that you didn't have the courtesy to even respond to his post. > > > > Is your excuse that you're too much of a LOON to be held to ordinary > > standards of debate? Will you now fail to respond to his reply > > because you're too technologically challenged to be able to LOOK > > IT UP? > > > > Are you sure that you've asked the question you really want answered? > > > > Because you've already been answered, in detail, by several people. > > Well George answered false, and you answered true. Apparently you have difficulty reading, but let's suppose that indeed, George and I disagree on this -- so the question now becomes, Herkimer, which one of George or me is correct? Or do you just want to go hide under a rock somewhere? -- hz |