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: |-|ercules on 28 Jun 2010 01:25 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > 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. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! THAT IS COMPLETELY STUPID! You stupid IDIOT! We don't say HAUNT NIGHTMARES! NIGHTMARES are INANIMATE!! Ok they're NOT INANIMATE they are ANIMATED but they are NOT *SENTIENT* in their ANIMATION FOOL! GET IT RIGHT! LEARN TO make your insults CLEAR and SPECULATIVE! A rabbit possum will haunt YOU *IN* your nighties! Herc
From: Joshua Cranmer on 28 Jun 2010 18:21 On 06/28/2010 01:25 AM, |-|ercules wrote: > GET IT RIGHT! LEARN TO make your insults CLEAR and SPECULATIVE! > A rabbit possum will haunt YOU *IN* your nighties! Actually, one of the definitions of "haunt" is (according to my dictionary) "to visit frequently." If you consider your nightmares to be a place for your mind to dwell, it is not hard for a rabid (not rabbit, rabid) possum to haunt them. Learn the English language before calling people out on it, mmmkay? -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
From: |-|ercules on 28 Jun 2010 18:44 "Joshua Cranmer" <Pidgeot18(a)verizon.invalid> wrote ... > On 06/28/2010 01:25 AM, |-|ercules wrote: >> GET IT RIGHT! LEARN TO make your insults CLEAR and SPECULATIVE! >> A rabbit possum will haunt YOU *IN* your nighties! > > Actually, one of the definitions of "haunt" is (according to my > dictionary) "to visit frequently." If you consider your nightmares to be > a place for your mind to dwell, it is not hard for a rabid (not rabbit, > rabid) possum to haunt them. I don't mind people missing the point of my posts but NOBODY, NOBODY denegrades the rabbit possum outside of the realm of dwelling minds meanwhile denegrading my use of a living language with uncouth derelict terms mmmkay! Herc
From: David Bernier on 7 Jul 2010 06:30
Transfer Principle wrote: > 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. I was thinking of first order set theory (ZFC), without any defined terms; for example, the following is a standard defined term: _ordered_pair_ . The ordered pair (x, y) := { {x}, {x, y} } . (Kuratowski def.) Reference: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_pair> Getting rid of all defined terms, one is left with bare set theory. Then a well-formed formula (or just formula) with the free variable f expressing: "f is a function from omega to P(omega)" becomes long and unwieldy. Once I wrote a computer program to re-write formulas so that no defined terms were used: only element of and logical connectives and quantifiers were allowed. Then " x is the Real numbers" was re-written as a very long formula. So my point is, even with the Laws of ZFC, non-trivial formulas are often unwieldy when all is re-written with no use of defined terms. David Bernier |