How Wide Do All The Possible Computed Digit Sequences Go? [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 05:36

On Jun 22, 4:28 pm, 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

Where is my reference to computable reals here Rupert?

This is a question with a quantity answer.

If you can't answer say so.

Herc

From: Rupert on 22 Jun 2010 05:39

On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:10 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 6:30 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > No. That's not right. The formula says that, if x is any cardinal,
> > then the set of all sequences of decimal digits of length x has
> > cardinality 10^x.
>
> > But you were not talking about the set of all sequences of decimal
> > digits of length x, for any cardinal x. You were talking about the set
> > of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph-null.
> > The formula does not apply in that situation.
>
> > > If you're going to disagree with me say opposing statements
> > > this is very confusing where you're going, as predicted
>
> > > Herc
>
> If you listed digit permutations in an infinite list
> what is the max digit width that all permutations
> could be calculated?
>
> Herc

I find this one pretty hard to parse. For any ordinal alpha, one may
consider the set of all sequences of decimal digits of length alpha.
However, if you make the requirement that the set be countable, then
the set of alpha for which this is possible is the set of all finite
ordinals. This set has no maximum element. Its least upper bound is
omega but omega is not a member of the set. There is no reason why
this set should have to contain its own least upper bound.

From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 05:39

On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote:
> On 22/06/2010 7:21 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:14 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 22/06/2010 6:30 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> >> It's hardly a simple application. For a start, your question was phrased
> >> the other way around, so that a logarithm to base 10 and ceiling
> >> function would be required for a finite set of numbers. But you can't
> >> just plug infinity into functions that are valid for finite arguments,
> >> and expect to get a meaningful answer, and it's not surprising that
> >> Rupert didn't try.
>
> >>> If you're going to disagree with me say opposing statements
> >>> this is very confusing where you're going, as predicted
>
> >> What does that mean? Why does your ability to express yourself in
> >> English take these turns for the worse?
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> > So if y = log (x)
> > and x = infinity
>
> False proposition.
>
> > you don't know y ?
>
> Nothing to know - see above.
>
>
>
> > You have 1000 theorems of transfiniteness but can't
> > do sums with infinity?
>
> Sums are not defined with infinity.
>
> Sylvia.

You are reaching.

What is false?

Y = log (x)

or

The list is infinite

Herc

From: Sylvia Else on 22 Jun 2010 05:40

On 22/06/2010 7:33 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:10 pm, Rupert<rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 6:30 pm, Graham Cooper<grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No. That's not right. The formula says that, if x is any cardinal,
>> then the set of all sequences of decimal digits of length x has
>> cardinality 10^x.
>>
>> But you were not talking about the set of all sequences of decimal
>> digits of length x, for any cardinal x. You were talking about the set
>> of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph-null.
>> The formula does not apply in that situation.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If you're going to disagree with me say opposing statements
>>> this is very confusing where you're going, as predicted
>>
>>> Herc
>
>
> If you listed digit permutations in an infinite list
> what is the max digit width that all permutations
> could be calculated?

Why do your questions so often come out garbled?

However,

> If you listed digit permutations in an infinite list

You must mean permutations of an infinite number of digits, otherwise
the list couldn't be infinite, but since there's a requirement to list
them, the listed permutations must be a subset of the set of all the
permutations of the infinite number of digits, since the full set is
uncountable, and therefore incapable of being listed.

> what is the max digit width that all permutations
> could be calculated?

God only knows what that means.

Sylvia.

From: Graham Cooper on 22 Jun 2010 05:43

On Jun 22, 7:39 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 22, 7:10 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 22, 6:30 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > No. That's not right. The formula says that, if x is any cardinal,
> > > then the set of all sequences of decimal digits of length x has
> > > cardinality 10^x.
>
> > > But you were not talking about the set of all sequences of decimal
> > > digits of length x, for any cardinal x. You were talking about the set
> > > of all *computable* sequences of decimal digits of length aleph-null.
> > > The formula does not apply in that situation.
>
> > > > If you're going to disagree with me say opposing statements
> > > > this is very confusing where you're going, as predicted
>
> > > > Herc
>
> > If you listed digit permutations in an infinite list
> > what is the max digit width that all permutations
> > could be calculated?
>
> > Herc
>
> I find this one pretty hard to parse. For any ordinal alpha, one may
> consider the set of all sequences of decimal digits of length alpha.
> However, if you make the requirement that the set be countable, then
> the set of alpha for which this is possible is the set of all finite
> ordinals. This set has no maximum element. Its least upper bound is
> omega but omega is not a member of the set. There is no reason why
> this set should have to contain its own least upper bound.

You're dismissing the result based on your assumption
that the result contradicts.

If the length of the set approaches infinity
the width of the complete permutations approaches infinity

Herc