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: George Greene on 22 Jun 2010 20:43 On Jun 22, 4:17 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > So as number of reals in the list of computable reals tends to oo > the digit width of 'every permutation' tends to infinity. NO, DUMBASS! The digit width OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL real IS ALWAYS INFINITY, TO START WITH! And PERMUTATIONS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING! Changing the ORDER of some strings DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT on how WIDE they are! > BUT if the number of computable reals WAS oo The NUMBER of computable reals IS infinite! But YOU MAY NOT USE the symbol "oo". THAT IS *AMBIGUOUS*!! YOU DON'T KNOW *WHICH* infinity that MEANS! The symbol you MAY use is w. You just need to stop talking about permuations, period. They do not mean or change anything.
From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 20:48 On 23/06/2010 6:17 AM, Graham Cooper wrote: > On Jun 22, 9:56 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> On 22/06/2010 8:13 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 22, 8:04 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 22/06/2010 7:39 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 22/06/2010 7:21 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Jun 22, 7:14 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 22/06/2010 6:30 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 6:19 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2010 6:14 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 6:05 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2010 5:52 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 5:48 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/06/2010 5:06 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 22, 4:33 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There does not exist an ordinal number x, such that the set of all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the set of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> length aleph-null does have cardinality aleph-null. But it is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equal to the set of *all* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> null. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you are disputing the formula 10^x reals can list >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all digit permutations x digits wide? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> He didn't say that at all. How on Earth did you get there? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The question I gave him was an application of that formula >>>>>>>>>>>>> his answer was not. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I dare say, but your suggested inference was still not valid. His answer >>>>>>>>>>>> said nothing about what 10^x reals can do. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >> >>>>>>>>>>> What kind of muddled logic is that? >> >>>>>>>>>> Well, did his answer say something about what 10^x reals can do? If so, >>>>>>>>>> what did it say? Where did it say it? >> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >> >>>>>>>>> Huh? He didn't use the the formula to answer the question >>>>>>>>> so I said he must be disputing the formula. As the answer is >>>>>>>>> a simple application of the formula. >> >>>>>>>> It's hardly a simple application. For a start, your question was phrased >>>>>>>> the other way around, so that a logarithm to base 10 and ceiling >>>>>>>> function would be required for a finite set of numbers. But you can't >>>>>>>> just plug infinity into functions that are valid for finite arguments, >>>>>>>> and expect to get a meaningful answer, and it's not surprising that >>>>>>>> Rupert didn't try. >> >>>>>>>>> If you're going to disagree with me say opposing statements >>>>>>>>> this is very confusing where you're going, as predicted >> >>>>>>>> What does that mean? Why does your ability to express yourself in >>>>>>>> English take these turns for the worse? >> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >> >>>>>>> So if y = log (x) >>>>>>> and x = infinity >> >>>>>> False proposition. >> >>>>>>> you don't know y ? >> >>>>>> Nothing to know - see above. >> >>>>>>> You have 1000 theorems of transfiniteness but can't >>>>>>> do sums with infinity? >> >>>>>> Sums are not defined with infinity. >> >>>>>> Sylvia. >> >>>>> You are reaching. >> >>>>> What is false? >> >>>>> Y = log (x) >> >>>>> or >> >>>> y = log (x) and x = infinity. >> >>>> That statement is false. >> >>>> Sylvia. >> >>> Why? Ignoring your other copious bullshit. >> >> The function log(x) is not defined for x = infinity, so whatever value y >> has, it cannot possibly equal the result from the log function. >> >> The nearest you can get is that y tends to infinity as x tends to infinity. >> >> Sylvia. > > So as number of reals in the list of computable reals tends to oo > the digit width of 'every permutation' tends to infinity. > > BUT if the number of computable reals WAS oo the digit width > of 'every permutation' is NOT infinity. You're applying the reasoning backwards. An incorrect line of reasoning can lead to a correct result. For example, I allege the following to be a theorem: 2 + 2 = 4, therefore sqrt(9) = 3. You can dismantle the reasoning, and show that it is not a theorem. but sqrt(9) is still 3. > > What abou this > > x = oo > y = x > > what is y? I have no problem with y being oo (provided the = operator is transitive in the particular set of axioms involved). Sylvia.
From: Rupert on 22 Jun 2010 21:29 On Jun 22, 7:43 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 7:39 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 22, 7:10 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 22, 6:30 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 22, 6:19 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22/06/2010 6:14 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 6:05 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > >> On 22/06/2010 5:52 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > >>> On Jun 22, 5:48 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > >>>> On 22/06/2010 5:06 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>> On Jun 22, 4:33 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> There does not exist an ordinal number x, such that the set of all > > > > > > >>>>>> sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null. > > > > > > >>>>>> However, the set of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of > > > > > > >>>>>> length aleph-null does have cardinality aleph-null. But it is not > > > > > > >>>>>> equal to the set of *all* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph- > > > > > > >>>>>> null. > > > > > > > >>>>> So you are disputing the formula 10^x reals can list > > > > > > >>>>> all digit permutations x digits wide? > > > > > > > >>>> He didn't say that at all. How on Earth did you get there? > > > > > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > > > > > >>> The question I gave him was an application of that formula > > > > > > >>> his answer was not. > > > > > > > >> I dare say, but your suggested inference was still not valid.. His answer > > > > > > >> said nothing about what 10^x reals can do. > > > > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > > > What kind of muddled logic is that? > > > > > > > Well, did his answer say something about what 10^x reals can do? If so, > > > > > > what did it say? Where did it say it? > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > Huh? He didn't use the the formula to answer the question > > > > > so I said he must be disputing the formula. As the answer is > > > > > a simple application of the formula. > > > > > No. That's not right. The formula says that, if x is any cardinal, > > > > then the set of all sequences of decimal digits of length x has > > > > cardinality 10^x. > > > > > But you were not talking about the set of all sequences of decimal > > > > digits of length x, for any cardinal x. You were talking about the set > > > > of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph-null. > > > > The formula does not apply in that situation. > > > > > > If you're going to disagree with me say opposing statements > > > > > this is very confusing where you're going, as predicted > > > > > > Herc > > > > If you listed digit permutations in an infinite list > > > what is the max digit width that all permutations > > > could be calculated? > > > > Herc > > > I find this one pretty hard to parse. For any ordinal alpha, one may > > consider the set of all sequences of decimal digits of length alpha. > > However, if you make the requirement that the set be countable, then > > the set of alpha for which this is possible is the set of all finite > > ordinals. This set has no maximum element. Its least upper bound is > > omega but omega is not a member of the set. There is no reason why > > this set should have to contain its own least upper bound. > > You're dismissing the result based on your assumption > that the result contradicts. > What result? I said "There is no reason why this set should have to contain its own least upper bound" because that's true. If you think you can offer a reason I am happy to listen. (Probably shows that I have too much time on my hands, but I will gladly listen.) > If the length of the set approaches infinity > the width of the complete permutations approaches infinity > What ever exactly that means. I think you just need to be a bit clearer about what your point is.
From: Rupert on 22 Jun 2010 21:31 On Jun 22, 7:36 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 4:28 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 3:21 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I'm afraid I don't understand the question. > > > If it takes 10^x reals to have every permutation x digits wide > > how many digits wide would oo reals make? > > > Herc > > Where is my reference to computable reals here Rupert? > > This is a question with a quantity answer. > > If you can't answer say so. > > Herc- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There does not exist a cardinal number x, such that the set of all sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null. If you have some cardinal number x and a set of sequences of decimal digits of length x of cardinality aleph-null, then it must be the case that this set does not contain all the sequences of decimal digits of length x. That is my answer to your question as best I understand it. But I am not sure I really understand what you are talking about.
From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 22:17
On Jun 23, 11:31 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 7:36 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 4:28 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 22, 3:21 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I'm afraid I don't understand the question. > > > > If it takes 10^x reals to have every permutation x digits wide > > > how many digits wide would oo reals make? > > > > Herc > > > Where is my reference to computable reals here Rupert? > > > This is a question with a quantity answer. > > > If you can't answer say so. > > > Herc- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There does not exist a cardinal number x, such that the set of all > sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null. > > If you have some cardinal number x and a set of sequences of decimal > digits of length x of cardinality aleph-null, then it must be the case > that this set does not contain all the sequences of decimal digits of > length x. > > That is my answer to your question as best I understand it. But I am > not sure I really understand what you are talking about. The topic of the thread is the width of permutations as in every permutation of a certain width and it's relation to the size of the list of reals. You are refuting that this width approaches infinity as the list of reals approaches infinity based on a/. You don't know what I'm referring to b/. Reverse engineering that there is no defined width because it refutes transfiniteness theory you're avoiding the question plain and simple Herc |