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: 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
From: |-|ercules on 26 Jun 2010 23:07 "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote >> > > 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 At any rate Sylvia has ceased her constant accusations of not showing how to list the digit-wide-permutations or having a finite index for such and such a real. I'm sure you were aware of her confusion with such terms as "bona-fide" "definite index position". Herc
From: George Greene on 28 Jun 2010 01:10
On Jun 26, 11:07 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > At any rate Sylvia has ceased her constant accusations of not showing how to list the digit-wide-permutations If you don't stop saying "permutations", the ghost of a rabid possum is going to haunt your nightmares. |