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: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 04:14 On Jun 22, 6:05 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > On 22/06/2010 5:52 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 5:48 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> On 22/06/2010 5:06 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > >>> On Jun 22, 4:33 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> There does not exist an ordinal number x, such that the set of all > >>>> sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null. > >>>> However, the set of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of > >>>> length aleph-null does have cardinality aleph-null. But it is not > >>>> equal to the set of *all* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph- > >>>> null. > > >>> So you are disputing the formula 10^x reals can list > >>> all digit permutations x digits wide? > > >> He didn't say that at all. How on Earth did you get there? > > >> Sylvia. > > > The question I gave him was an application of that formula > > his answer was not. > > I dare say, but your suggested inference was still not valid. His answer > said nothing about what 10^x reals can do. > > Sylvia. What kind of muddled logic is that? LOL sorry Rupert for the personal attack. But you ignored my question last thread that you made a comment Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 04:19 On 22/06/2010 6:14 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > On Jun 22, 6:05 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> On 22/06/2010 5:52 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 22, 5:48 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 22/06/2010 5:06 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 22, 4:33 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> There does not exist an ordinal number x, such that the set of all >>>>>> sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null. >>>>>> However, the set of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of >>>>>> length aleph-null does have cardinality aleph-null. But it is not >>>>>> equal to the set of *all* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph- >>>>>> null. >> >>>>> So you are disputing the formula 10^x reals can list >>>>> all digit permutations x digits wide? >> >>>> He didn't say that at all. How on Earth did you get there? >> >>>> Sylvia. >> >>> The question I gave him was an application of that formula >>> his answer was not. >> >> I dare say, but your suggested inference was still not valid. His answer >> said nothing about what 10^x reals can do. >> >> Sylvia. > > > > What kind of muddled logic is that? Well, did his answer say something about what 10^x reals can do? If so, what did it say? Where did it say it? Sylvia.
From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 04:30 On Jun 22, 6:19 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > On 22/06/2010 6:14 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 6:05 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> On 22/06/2010 5:52 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > >>> On Jun 22, 5:48 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >>>> On 22/06/2010 5:06 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > >>>>> On Jun 22, 4:33 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> There does not exist an ordinal number x, such that the set of all > >>>>>> sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null.. > >>>>>> However, the set of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of > >>>>>> length aleph-null does have cardinality aleph-null. But it is not > >>>>>> equal to the set of *all* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph- > >>>>>> null. > > >>>>> So you are disputing the formula 10^x reals can list > >>>>> all digit permutations x digits wide? > > >>>> He didn't say that at all. How on Earth did you get there? > > >>>> Sylvia. > > >>> The question I gave him was an application of that formula > >>> his answer was not. > > >> I dare say, but your suggested inference was still not valid. His answer > >> said nothing about what 10^x reals can do. > > >> Sylvia. > > > What kind of muddled logic is that? > > Well, did his answer say something about what 10^x reals can do? If so, > what did it say? Where did it say it? > > Sylvia. Huh? He didn't use the the formula to answer the question so I said he must be disputing the formula. As the answer is a simple application of the formula. If you're going to disagree with me say opposing statements this is very confusing where you're going, as predicted Herc
From: Rupert on 22 Jun 2010 05:08 On Jun 22, 5:06 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 4:33 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On 6¿ù22ÀÏ, ¿ÀÈÄ4½Ã28ºÐ, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 22, 3:21 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 22, 6:44 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 22, 12:08 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 10:40 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 21/06/2010 5:03 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 21, 4:28 pm, "|-|ercules"<radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Every possible combination X wide... > > > > > > > > >> What is X? > > > > > > > > >> Now watch as 100 mathematicians fail to parse a trivial question. > > > > > > > > >> Someone MUST know what idea I'm getting at! > > > > > > > > >> This ternary set covers all possible digits sequences 2 digits wide! > > > > > > > > >> 0.00 > > > > > > > >> 0.01 > > > > > > > >> 0.02 > > > > > > > >> 0.10 > > > > > > > >> 0.11 > > > > > > > >> 0.12 > > > > > > > >> 0.20 > > > > > > > >> 0.21 > > > > > > > >> 0.22 > > > > > > > > >> HOW WIDE ARE ALL_POSSIBLE_SEQUENCES COVERED IN THE SET OF COMPUTABLE REALS? > > > > > > > > >> Herc > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > >> If you ever rob someone, even to get your own stuff back, don't use the phrase > > > > > > > >> "Nobody leave the room!" ~ OJ Simpson > > > > > > > > > It would probably be a good idea for you to talk instead about the set > > > > > > > > of all computable sequences of digits base n, where n is some integer > > > > > > > > greater than one. Then the length of each sequence would be aleph- > > > > > > > > null. But not every sequence of length aleph-null would be included. > > > > > > > > That answer looks correct. > > > > > > > > But I guarantee that Herc won't accept it. > > > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > > > > It's truly hilarious. It's like using a Santa clause metaphor > > > > > > to explain why Santa clause is not real, > > > > > > but it will do for now. > > > > > > > Herc > > > > > > Actually on second reading I think Rupert threw a red herring > > > > > > He didn't adress the question at all. How wide are all possible > > > > > permutations of digits covered? This is different to all possible > > > > > listed sequences he just answered that numbers are inf. long! > > > > > > Herc- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I'm afraid I don't understand the question. > > > > If it takes 10^x reals to have every permutation x digits wide > > > how many digits wide would oo reals make? > > > > Herc- ¿øº» ÅؽºÆ® ¼û±â±â - > > > > - ¿øº» ÅؽºÆ® º¸±â - > > > There does not exist an ordinal number x, such that the set of all > > sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null. > > However, the set of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of > > length aleph-null does have cardinality aleph-null. But it is not > > equal to the set of *all* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph- > > null. > > So you are disputing the formula 10^x reals can list > all digit permutations x digits wide? > No, but I deny that there is any cardinal x such that 10^x=aleph-null. > I told you all this fairy logic made him fcked in the head! > > Herc
From: Rupert on 22 Jun 2010 05:09
On Jun 22, 6:14 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 6:05 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > > > > On 22/06/2010 5:52 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > On Jun 22, 5:48 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > > >> On 22/06/2010 5:06 PM, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > >>> On Jun 22, 4:33 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>>> There does not exist an ordinal number x, such that the set of all > > >>>> sequences of decimal digits of length x has cardinality aleph-null.. > > >>>> However, the set of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of > > >>>> length aleph-null does have cardinality aleph-null. But it is not > > >>>> equal to the set of *all* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph- > > >>>> null. > > > >>> So you are disputing the formula 10^x reals can list > > >>> all digit permutations x digits wide? > > > >> He didn't say that at all. How on Earth did you get there? > > > >> Sylvia. > > > > The question I gave him was an application of that formula > > > his answer was not. > > > I dare say, but your suggested inference was still not valid. His answer > > said nothing about what 10^x reals can do. > > > Sylvia. > > What kind of muddled logic is that? > > LOL > > sorry Rupert for the personal attack. But you ignored > my question last thread that you made a comment > > Herc I think I must have not read your response. |