How Wide Do All The Possible Computed Digit Sequences Go?
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Question about the complexity of a sentence
Next: Is Borel determinacy true in the recursive reals?
From: Graham Cooper on 21 Jun 2010 16:44 On Jun 22, 12:08 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 21, 10:40 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21/06/2010 5:03 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > On Jun 21, 4:28 pm, "|-|ercules"<radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Every possible combination X wide... > > > >> What is X? > > > >> Now watch as 100 mathematicians fail to parse a trivial question. > > > >> Someone MUST know what idea I'm getting at! > > > >> This ternary set covers all possible digits sequences 2 digits wide! > > > >> 0.00 > > >> 0.01 > > >> 0.02 > > >> 0.10 > > >> 0.11 > > >> 0.12 > > >> 0.20 > > >> 0.21 > > >> 0.22 > > > >> HOW WIDE ARE ALL_POSSIBLE_SEQUENCES COVERED IN THE SET OF COMPUTABLE REALS? > > > >> Herc > > >> -- > > >> If you ever rob someone, even to get your own stuff back, don't use the phrase > > >> "Nobody leave the room!" ~ OJ Simpson > > > > It would probably be a good idea for you to talk instead about the set > > > of all computable sequences of digits base n, where n is some integer > > > greater than one. Then the length of each sequence would be aleph- > > > null. But not every sequence of length aleph-null would be included. > > > That answer looks correct. > > > But I guarantee that Herc won't accept it. > > > Sylvia. > > It's truly hilarious. It's like using a Santa clause metaphor > to explain why Santa clause is not real, > but it will do for now. > > Herc Actually on second reading I think Rupert threw a red herring He didn't adress the question at all. How wide are all possible permutations of digits covered? This is different to all possible listed sequences he just answered that numbers are inf. long! Herc
From: Graham Cooper on 21 Jun 2010 16:48 On Jun 22, 6:44 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 12:08 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 10:40 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > > On 21/06/2010 5:03 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 4:28 pm, "|-|ercules"<radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> Every possible combination X wide... > > > > >> What is X? > > > > >> Now watch as 100 mathematicians fail to parse a trivial question. > > > > >> Someone MUST know what idea I'm getting at! > > > > >> This ternary set covers all possible digits sequences 2 digits wide! > > > > >> 0.00 > > > >> 0.01 > > > >> 0.02 > > > >> 0.10 > > > >> 0.11 > > > >> 0.12 > > > >> 0.20 > > > >> 0.21 > > > >> 0.22 > > > > >> HOW WIDE ARE ALL_POSSIBLE_SEQUENCES COVERED IN THE SET OF COMPUTABLE REALS? > > > > >> Herc > > > >> -- > > > >> If you ever rob someone, even to get your own stuff back, don't use the phrase > > > >> "Nobody leave the room!" ~ OJ Simpson > > > > > It would probably be a good idea for you to talk instead about the set > > > > of all computable sequences of digits base n, where n is some integer > > > > greater than one. Then the length of each sequence would be aleph- > > > > null. But not every sequence of length aleph-null would be included.. > > > > That answer looks correct. > > > > But I guarantee that Herc won't accept it. > > > > Sylvia. > > > It's truly hilarious. It's like using a Santa clause metaphor > > to explain why Santa clause is not real, > > but it will do for now. > > > Herc > > Actually on second reading I think Rupert threw a red herring > > He didn't adress the question at all. How wide are all possible > permutations of digits covered? This is different to all possible > listed sequences he just answered that numbers are inf. long! > > Herc it's really amazing that all sci.math think evasion and dishonest answers justify cantors proof! Herc
From: George Greene on 21 Jun 2010 18:59 On Jun 21, 4:44 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Actually on second reading I think Rupert threw a red herring FORGET Rupert. Rupert is way above your level in any case. Haven't you seen the kinds of questions HE'S been posting, as of interest to him?? > He didn't adress the question at all. I DID. I ANSWERED your question. And it is AN INCREDIBLY STUPID question. A question that you COULD NOT EVEN BEGIN to ask if you had THE FIRST clue what is going on! > How wide are all possible permutations of digits covered? The permutations HAVE NOTHING to do with it! EVERY ELEMENT ON THE LISTS, ALL the lists in question, IS INFINITELY WIDE! The length is DENUMERABLE! The length is COUNTABLY INFINITE. The length IS THE SMALLEST INFINITY. TAHT IS the answer! > This is different to all possible listed sequences NO, IT ISN'T! IF we are talking about listed sequences OF REALS then the WIDTH OF EVERY real is COUNTABLE INFINITY! EVEN in the case of ..5, that is just AN ABBREVIATION for .50000000000000000000000000...., IF you mean THE REAL number 1/2 AS OPPOSED to the RATIONAL number 1/2 ! > he just answered that numbers are inf. long! THAT IS the answer, DIPSHIT! ALL real numbers, expressed as digit-expansions, ARE INFINITELY LONG! All of them ARE SUBSETS OF *AN INFINITE* set, which means they are AN INFINITY OF ANSWERS to an infinite number OF INDIVIDUAL questions, about whether an INDIVIDUAL natural IS OR IS NOT in the set! In the case of finite sets, that just means that all the answers after some highest element are NO! It does NOT mean that you are only dealing with a finite number of answers! > > Herc
From: George Greene on 21 Jun 2010 19:01 On Jun 21, 4:44 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > He didn't adress the question at all. How wide are all possible > permutations of digits covered? THERE IS NO SUCH THING as *COVERED* !! "COVERED" IS *YOUR* term! This WAS NOT ALREADY IN the mathematical lexicon! YOU HAVE TO SAY what YOU THINK "covered" means! YOU ARE *NOT* intellectually competent to do this! > This is different to all possible listed sequences You SURELY meant all possible (whether listed or not) FINITE sequences. That is THE ONLY way to make any sense out of your question. But the fact that you YOURSELF DID NOT know this JUST PROVES that you simply have no right to be here doing this. > he just answered that numbers are inf. long! That's because THEY ARE. Real numbers ARE infinitely wide. ALL of them. THEY ALL have AN INFINITE number of digits. And it is the SMALLEST infinity. EVERY ONE of these infinitely many digits IS SOME FINITE distance away (a different finite distance for every different place) from the starting (decimal) point. > > Herc
From: George Greene on 21 Jun 2010 19:06
On Jun 21, 3:03 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > It would probably be a good idea for you to talk instead about the set > of all computable sequences of digits base n, where n is some integer > greater than one. Oh, please. Surely we can agree that That Is What HE IS Talking About, even if he is too stupid to know it. > Then the length of each sequence would be aleph-null. In theory, and by definitions FROM that theory, OF COURSE. But Herc is not familiar with the theory and there will be a minor complication for reals whose expansion in the relevant base TERMINATES, or, equivalently, has an all-0 or all-9 (for values of 9 varying as the predecessor of the base) suffix. > But not every sequence of length aleph-null would be included. Well, it would not be included if the list were denumerably long. The problem is, Herc will not concede that ALL lists HAVE to be countably long. He will just add the anti-diagonal to the head of the list and REiterate, AD INFinitum. |