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: David Bernier on 25 Jun 2010 01:57 Tim Little wrote: > On 2010-06-24, Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> On 24/06/2010 1:12 PM, Tim Little wrote: >>> The list of all computable reals is exactly such a list. Most >>> importantly, no property specific to pi is used here. Every real >>> would be "contained in" that list if we were to use Herc's broken idea >>> of "contained in". >> >> Ok, but his next step - all finite prefixes implies all infinite >> sequences - is false. So all it means is that his 'proof' contains two >> invalid steps rather than just one. > > 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 have this analogy between chess concepts and mathematics concepts which occurred to me not long ago. Those who have done publishable research in mathematics (as well as others with aptitude) may or seem to be working with high-level math. concepts For example, even having mastery over "function with domain A and co-domain B" in the greatest generality might have some medium to high-level ideas: a mapping can be illustrated but with no "rule", as f(n) = n!, it might be hard to grasp. 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. No argument for the uncountability of the reals presented in sci.math is likely to be in formal FOL ZFC. So ultimately it must rest on English sentences and some math. symbols. These evoke in the understanders ideas and concepts, with logical connections and the argument is understood, eventually. When I look at papers on Langlands functoriality, I'm left in a very foggy state of mind. Perhaps some of the non-understanders are in some kind of foggy state too... In chess, there are many high-level concepts including cramped position, king safety, key squares, weak pawns, strong knights, blockade, etc. etc. David Bernier
From: Mike Terry on 25 Jun 2010 14:09 "Graham Cooper" <grahamcooper7(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:deeb13f2-175e-4afd-b132-7c1ce1f9a0e8(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 25, 2:25 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > On 25/06/2010 2:20 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 12:55 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > >> On 25/06/2010 6:10 AM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > >>> On Jun 24, 11:35 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > >>>> On 24/06/2010 5:09 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Jun 24, 5:00 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>>> On 24/06/2010 1:12 PM, Tim Little wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> On 2010-06-23, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On 23/06/2010 5:00 PM, Tim Little wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> It can't be conceded, as it is simply false. The predicate "list L > > >>>>>>>>> contains x" means exactly that there exists n in N such that L_n = x. > > >>>>>>>>> The list does not contain pi since there is no such n. It really is > > >>>>>>>>> that simple. > > > > >>>>>>>> Well, OK. Though I can't see how it makes any difference to Herc's > > >>>>>>>> argument, since I could never see what role it played anyway. > > > > >>>>>>> It is the very core of his argument: if pi were "contained in" the > > >>>>>>> infinite list > > > > >>>>>>> 3 > > >>>>>>> 3.1 > > >>>>>>> 3.14 > > >>>>>>> 3.141 > > >>>>>>> ... > > > > >>>>>>> then it would also be "contained in" any other list sharing the "all > > >>>>>>> prefixes" property, such as > > > > >>>>>>> 3.0000000 > > >>>>>>> 3.1000000 > > >>>>>>> 3.1428571. . . > > >>>>>>> 3.1414141 > > >>>>>>> ... > > > > >>>>>>> It would even be "contained in" any list having that as a sublist, e.g. > > > > >>>>>>> 0.0000000 > > >>>>>>> 3.0000000 > > >>>>>>> 3.1000000 > > >>>>>>> 1.0000000 > > >>>>>>> 3.1428571. . . > > >>>>>>> 2.0934953 > > >>>>>>> 0.5829345 > > >>>>>>> 3.1414141 > > >>>>>>> ... > > > > >>>>>>> The list of all computable reals is exactly such a list. Most > > >>>>>>> importantly, no property specific to pi is used here. Every real > > >>>>>>> would be "contained in" that list if we were to use Herc's broken idea > > >>>>>>> of "contained in". > > > > >>>>>> Ok, but his next step - all finite prefixes implies all infinite > > >>>>>> sequences - is false. So all it means is that his 'proof' contains two > > >>>>>> invalid steps rather than just one. > > > > >>>>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>>>> I've told you atleast 3 times specifically that is NOT an implication > > >>>>> of hc3. I put it in a implication formula -> are you amnesiac? > > > > >>>> I never said it was an implication *of* hc3. I say it's an implication > > >>>> *in* hc3. > > > > >>>>> As long as all permutations oo wide are in the set, (segmented, > > >>>>> appended to hitlers number, inverted, imputed, with any other > > >>>>> numbers you can think of) I don't care! > > > > >>>> You need to prove that they're all in the set, or you have nothing. > > > > >>>>> But one of these days > > >>>>> one of is going to confirm oo digits of every sequence are ALL THERE > > > > >>>> Sylvia. > > > > >>> That is no excuse you are still wrong. Something that is implied > > >>> is implied. You corrected the correction in place of admitting > > >>> you have been told > > > > >>> all finite prefixes -> all oo long sequences > > > > >>> is N O T hc3 > > > > >>> you've been told 5 times now plus I explained it several > > >>> more times in this thread and you still carry on. > > > > >>> Learn to read! > > > > >>> Herc > > > > >> I think it's best if we kill this subthread, and instead try to deal > > >> with the entire issue in the subthread where I've questioned your step 1. > > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > Mike Terry countered your objections to step 1 > > > > He most certainly did not. > > > > Sylvia. > > > I can't quote a long post on my iPhone but > search "definite index position" and "bona-fide list" > > kudos to Mike the first person to Take action to > end my torture. Could be a sign!!!!! Herc, I wouldn't count on that :-) All I have done is point out that you have a "bona-fide" list of strings of finite length. (Assuming I have understood your construction.) Everyone agrees these are countable in any case! I'm not in any way supporting your argument that this implies anything about strings of infinite length... (and I can't remember what Sylvia's objection to step 1 was, but I expect she was right :-) Mike. > Herc
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 25 Jun 2010 17:53 "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> kudos to Mike the first person to Take action to >> end my torture. Could be a sign!!!!! > > Herc, I wouldn't count on that :-) Well, to be honest, Herc has rather more experience seeing signs than you do. -- "This is based on the assumption that the difference in set size is what makes the important difference between finite and infinite sets, but I think most people -- even the mathematicians -- will agree that that probably isn't the case." -- Allan C Cybulskie explains infinite sets
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. |