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: |-|ercules on 6 Jun 2010 23:04 "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> wrote ... > > > |-|ercules wrote: > > [...] > >> 4/ I showed that higher infinities are thought to be implied by the >> non existence of a box that contains the numbers of the boxes that >> don't contain their own number >> >> [...] a couple have disagreed with 4 without substantiating why. > > You seem to have forgotten that I did just that: > > news:4C09C6CC.4A8B8EB(a)gmail.com . > > So also did William Hughes: > > news:e11507ed-53f6-4e70-9332-f2f4cf24830d(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com > > You also seem to have forgotten that in your thread > > "SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity" > > you specifically requested that responders *not* substantiate > their replies: > > "No explanations or you will spoil the poll, just TRUE or FALSE." > > So -- que voulez-vous? > > What do you want? Nobody answered the poll so I guess you should wait to give your reasons until you do. You gave the wrong answer, try this, if you can't think of some suitable interpretation then our discussion is over. Given a set of labeled boxes containing numbers inside them, can you possibly find a box containing all the label numbers of boxes that don't contain their own label number? Hughes went off on a tangent that 'sci.math don't believe in uncountable infinity after all' if I remember. Why acknowledge an obvious copout like that? Mathematicians have been SMART for a long time, they make millions of claims and when challenged they go "oh no I never said that, it's just what such and such axiom derives". You're all hot air, using the ultimate excuse "it wasn't me". Herc
From: herbzet on 6 Jun 2010 23:27 |-|ercules wrote: > "herbzet" wrote ... > > |-|ercules wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> 4/ I showed that higher infinities are thought to be implied by the > >> non existence of a box that contains the numbers of the boxes that > >> don't contain their own number > >> > >> [...] a couple have disagreed with 4 without substantiating why. > > > > You seem to have forgotten that I did just that: > > > > news:4C09C6CC.4A8B8EB(a)gmail.com . > > > > So also did William Hughes: > > > > news:e11507ed-53f6-4e70-9332-f2f4cf24830d(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com > > > > You also seem to have forgotten that in your thread > > > > "SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity" > > > > you specifically requested that responders *not* substantiate > > their replies: > > > > "No explanations or you will spoil the poll, just TRUE or FALSE." > > > > So -- que voulez-vous? > > > > What do you want? > > Nobody answered the poll Your saying so doesn't make it so, much as you may wish otherwise. >so I guess you should wait to give your reasons until you do. Already done, as shown in the link given above. You know how links work, right? > You gave the wrong answer, try this, if you can't think of some suitable > interpretation then our discussion is over. Promises, promises. > Given a set of labeled boxes containing numbers inside them, > can you possibly find a box containing all the label numbers of boxes > that don't contain their own label number? -- hz
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 06:49 "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> 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. > > -- > hz you can crawl back under your rock until the box question goes away. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 07:21 "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> 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? Herc
From: herbzet on 7 Jun 2010 07:25
|-|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? What is "this"? -- hz |