Give me ONE digit position of any real that isn't computable up to that digit position!
in [Math]
|
Prev: 4 More A-Hole companies
Next: Give me ONE digit position of any real that isn't computable up to that digit position!
From: herbzet on 7 Jun 2010 08:17 |-|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 |