How Wide Do All The Possible Computed Digit Sequences Go?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Dirac was both right and wrong about his magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #184; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: speed of light is likely to be more accurately that of 3.14159.. x 10^8 m/s; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #185; ATOM TOTALITY
From: George Greene on 21 Jun 2010 19:07 On Jun 21, 4:48 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > it's really amazing that all sci.math think evasion and > dishonest answers justify cantors proof! It is really amazing that you think you can get away with slandering 3 whole newsgroups as "evasive" and "dishonest" when IT IS YOU WHO REFUSE to address the points made against you.
From: George Greene on 21 Jun 2010 19:08 On Jun 21, 2:28 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > HOW WIDE ARE ALL_POSSIBLE_SEQUENCES COVERED IN THE SET OF COMPUTABLE REALS? If EVEN ONE "computable real" is infintely wide -- you know, like 1/3 = .33333333333333333333333.......... then THE OBVIOUS answer to THIS STUPID question is "infinity". But it will be THE SMALLEST infinity, since THAT'S THE DEFINITION of the digital expansion of a real.
From: Graham Cooper on 21 Jun 2010 20:21 On Jun 22, 9:08 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jun 21, 2:28 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > HOW WIDE ARE ALL_POSSIBLE_SEQUENCES COVERED IN THE SET OF COMPUTABLE REALS? > > If EVEN ONE "computable real" is infintely wide -- you know, like 1/3 > = .33333333333333333333333.......... > > then THE OBVIOUS answer to THIS STUPID question is > "infinity". > But it will be THE SMALLEST infinity, since THAT'S THE DEFINITION I'm truly astonished the "mathematicians" are answering the question 'how long is a real number' do they think I listed the ternary permutations of digits 2 wide for fun? If 3^2 reals are required to 'cover' every base 3 permutation to 2 digits wide.... How many digits wide of base 10 sequences can I finite reals cover? The use of the word cover should be explicit in it's use above. NOW what is your excuse to avoid answering the question? Herc
From: Graham Cooper on 21 Jun 2010 20:28 On Jun 22, 10:21 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 9:08 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > > > On Jun 21, 2:28 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > HOW WIDE ARE ALL_POSSIBLE_SEQUENCES COVERED IN THE SET OF COMPUTABLE REALS? > > > If EVEN ONE "computable real" is infintely wide -- you know, like 1/3 > > = .33333333333333333333333.......... > > > then THE OBVIOUS answer to THIS STUPID question is > > "infinity". > > But it will be THE SMALLEST infinity, since THAT'S THE DEFINITION > > I'm truly astonished the "mathematicians" are answering the question > 'how long is a real number' > > do they think I listed the ternary permutations of digits 2 wide > for fun? > > If 3^2 reals are required to 'cover' every base 3 permutation > to 2 digits wide.... > > How many digits wide of base 10 sequences can I finite reals > cover? How many digits wide of base 10 PERMUTATIONS can infinite reals cover? And fwiw, Ruperts ideas are only high level based on the junk foundations he has woven into the greatest mass halicination on earth. He thinks 'rupert cannot prove this statement' is not part of 'incompleteness' and no box containing the box numbers that don't contain their own number is evidence of transfiniteness. I'm trying to save you mob from theoretically induced insanity. Herc
From: herbzet on 21 Jun 2010 21:43
George Greene wrote: > Graham Cooper wrote: > > it's really amazing that all sci.math think evasion and > > dishonest answers justify cantors proof! > > It is really amazing that you think you can get away with slandering 3 > whole newsgroups as "evasive" and "dishonest" when IT IS YOU WHO REFUSE > to address the points made against you. It *is* amazing -- but clearly, he *can* get away with it. Troll 1532, schmucks 0. -- hz |