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 25 Jun 2010 19:53 On Jun 24, 9:12 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > You can't conclude ANYTHING from this? NO, dumbass, you CANNOT conclude ANYthing from ANY contradiction, EXCEPT that at least one of the premises was false. > Assumption. There exists a real with a finite > sequence that is not computable. > Contradiction. OBVIOUSLY, NO finite sequence is uncomputable! Therefore, OBVIOUSLY, no ANYthing -- not a real, not yo'mama, not yo' left pinkie toe, not NOTHIN' -- exists "with a finite sequence that is not computable". NOTHING special FOLLOWS from your putting A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS > Jesus George. All you have to do is describe the negation of the assumption THAT IS BULLSHIT. Who do you think you are??? NObody has to do ANYthing that YOU say! You do NOT SPEAK ENGLISH WELL ENOUGH to be TELLING anybody anything! The best you could do IS ASK some questions! You are not willing to do this because you are too busy spewing your self-contradictory ungrammatical bullshit. > You are a gutless evasive git! OUR side has NEVER EVADED ANYthing YOU have posted! YOU are the one who keeps EVADING*THE*FACT* that the anti-diagonal of a list -- ANY square list over a finite alphabet -- IS NOT ON the list!
From: George Greene on 25 Jun 2010 19:56 On Jun 25, 2:09 pm, "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > All I have done is point out that you have a "bona-fide" list of strings of > finite length. That was really stupid. There IS ONLY ONE relevant list of strings of finite length and that is THE list OF ALL of them (in some reasonable increasing order of length). > (Assuming I have understood your construction.) This is an idiotic assumption. There is NO reason for ANYone to TOLERATE Herc "constructing" ANYthing! If he cannot understand something AS SIMPLE as "all finite strings" THEN THERE IS NO HOPE! > Everyone agrees these are countable in any case! EXACTLY, which is EXACTLY why the discussion NEEDS TO START*AND*STAY* *THERE* !! Of course, Herc will never tolerate this, because EVEN as stupid as he is, EVEN HE can see that an INfinite string cannot POSSIBLY be "contained" in or on a list of strings that are ALL finite. Nevertheless, this list of finite strings has all the properties that HERC IS CLAIMING AND USING to try to justify his rants about the list of "all computable" strings.
From: Transfer Principle on 25 Jun 2010 23:06 On Jun 24, 9:17 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 1:41 pm, Tim Little <t...(a)little-possums.net> wrote: > > I think they're both examples of the same invalid use of "L contains x".. > > If you replaced Herc's incorrect statements of "L contains x" with > > "L contains a sequence with limit x" then both steps would be true. > > If L "contains" all finite prefixes in the above broken sense, then it > > provably does "contain" all infinite sequences in the same sense. > > True, but irrelevant to Cantor's proof (which uses the ordinary > > mathematical meaning) and everything else he's ranting about though. > I won['t] bother with repeated explanations on the "contains" > dilema as you ignore my counter questions and continue > that it's meaningless. OK, I just posted about Herc-"contains" in the other thread, before I noticed this explanation in this thread. (That's the problem with having so many Herc threads here!) Little's interpretation sounds reasonable, but Cooper does not corroborate this, since for one thing, he has already given "repeated explanations" on what it means. A Google search for these "repeated explanations" might work.
From: Transfer Principle on 25 Jun 2010 23:14 On Jun 24, 10:57 pm, David Bernier <david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote: > Tim Little wrote: > > True, but irrelevant to Cantor's proof (which uses the ordinary > > mathematical meaning) and everything else he's ranting about though. > I have this analogy between chess concepts and mathematics concepts > which occurred to me not long ago. > In chess, there are the Laws of chess. This I associate > to formal deductions in FOL ZFC. Anybody can check > a proof of Cantor's result that there is no bijection > between omega and P(omega); this would be > tedious and probably un-enlightening. But as not everyone is forced to play chess, not everyone is forced to use FOL+ZFC. Also, it's possible to know all the rules of chess, and nonetheless choose not to play it, or believe that the game isn't worth playing. Yet the "chess players" in this thread (the ZFC Herc-"religionists") insist that Herc doesn't know how to play chess (doesn't understand FOL+ZFC) merely because he doesn't want to play it (want to use FOL+ZFC). It's possible to know all the rules of a game and still not choose to play it, but this possibility has escaped most posters in this thread. This is how I interpret Bernier's analogy.
From: |-|ercules on 26 Jun 2010 22:43
"George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > Nevertheless, this list of finite strings has all the properties that > HERC IS CLAIMING AND USING > to try to justify his rants about the list of "all computable" > strings. Yes, Ghost in the machine used this argument 20 to 30 times 3 to 4 years ago, I do follow that. But it is possible to make claims about infinite strings using finite strings in the argument. Herc |