Prev: Z is not naturally ordered?
Next: A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof
From: |-|ercules on 8 Jun 2010 16:12
"Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:875mq5Fd31U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote...
>> > On 8/06/2010 5:40 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
>> >>>
>> >>> Herc, this is like the channelling stuff you post on youtube. You seem
>> >>> to think that you're proving something, but it's never clear *why* you
>> >>> think that.
>> >>>
>> >>> We see something like
>> >>>
>> >>> a = b therefore x = 3.
>> >>>
>> >>> To which the response is naturally <blink> huh?
>> >>>
>> >>> Sylvia.
>> >>
>> >> That's because you never bother to work things out, you have to be
> spoon
>> >> fed everything.
>> >
>> > There's never anything to be worked out. No sense can be extracted from
>> > nonsense.
>> >
>> > Sylvia.
>>
>> The idea was to *appear* nonsense, using an equivalent proof to higher
> infinity
>> as Cantor used.
>>
>> The Swan Lager carton contains stubbies of the type of beer that the
> cartons don't
>> contain their own type of stubby.
>>
>
> Yes - note that the Swan Lager carton was a *new* carton, i.e. not one of
> the cartons used in its own construction. No problem then: the procedure
> gives us a guaranteed new combination of beers in the Swan carton. We could
> imagine extending the argument to an infinite number of beer types/cartons I
> suppose, and this would be showing that if we have any map A-->P(A) there
> will always be an element of P(A) not in the image of the map. ("A" is "the
> set of beer types"). Of course in practice we could not do this with
> infinite beer types due to time/material constraints.
>
> Or are you saying you want the Swan Lager carton to be included in the
> original list used to build itself? Clearly that's physically nonsense.
> You might as well ask someone to solve the following puzzle:
>
> Here is a light switch. You must set it to on/off, satisfying the
> following criteria:
>
> a) you can only have the switch on, if the switch is off
> b) you can only have the switch off, if the switch is on
>
> Maybe you believe this is a deeply profound puzzle with relevance to
> Cantor's proof, but in fact it's just a nonsense puzzle with no solution.
> (And not contributing anything that invalidates Cantor's proof :-)
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike.
>


Mike, there is a very clear interpretation of the Swan Lager carton being equivalent
to the missing powerset subset in Cantor's powerset proof of higher infinity.

The way you all find alternate interpretations of my problems and think it dismisses
the issue is childish and bothersome.

Herc
From: Mike Terry on 8 Jun 2010 18:12
"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:877mhoF24eU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote
> > "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:875mq5Fd31U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote...
> >> > On 8/06/2010 5:40 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
> >> >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Herc, this is like the channelling stuff you post on youtube. You
seem
> >> >>> to think that you're proving something, but it's never clear *why*
you
> >> >>> think that.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We see something like
> >> >>>
> >> >>> a = b therefore x = 3.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> To which the response is naturally <blink> huh?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Sylvia.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's because you never bother to work things out, you have to be
> > spoon
> >> >> fed everything.
> >> >
> >> > There's never anything to be worked out. No sense can be extracted
from
> >> > nonsense.
> >> >
> >> > Sylvia.
> >>
> >> The idea was to *appear* nonsense, using an equivalent proof to higher
> > infinity
> >> as Cantor used.
> >>
> >> The Swan Lager carton contains stubbies of the type of beer that the
> > cartons don't
> >> contain their own type of stubby.
> >>
> >
> > Yes - note that the Swan Lager carton was a *new* carton, i.e. not one
of
> > the cartons used in its own construction. No problem then: the
procedure
> > gives us a guaranteed new combination of beers in the Swan carton. We
could
> > imagine extending the argument to an infinite number of beer
types/cartons I
> > suppose, and this would be showing that if we have any map A-->P(A)
there
> > will always be an element of P(A) not in the image of the map. ("A" is
"the
> > set of beer types").

Look, just above is where I'm agreeing with what you said in your reply (see
my note below)

> > Of course in practice we could not do this with
> > infinite beer types due to time/material constraints.
> >
> > Or are you saying you want the Swan Lager carton to be included in the
> > original list used to build itself? Clearly that's physically nonsense.
> > You might as well ask someone to solve the following puzzle:
> >
> > Here is a light switch. You must set it to on/off, satisfying the
> > following criteria:
> >
> > a) you can only have the switch on, if the switch is off
> > b) you can only have the switch off, if the switch is on
> >
> > Maybe you believe this is a deeply profound puzzle with relevance to
> > Cantor's proof, but in fact it's just a nonsense puzzle with no
solution.
> > (And not contributing anything that invalidates Cantor's proof :-)
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike.
> >
>
>
> Mike, there is a very clear interpretation of the Swan Lager carton being
equivalent
> to the missing powerset subset in Cantor's powerset proof of higher
infinity.

Yes - that's exactly what I said originally (see above).

>
> The way you all find alternate interpretations of my problems and think it
dismisses
> the issue is childish and bothersome.

I find other interpretations, because you aren't clear in what you write.
So I make a couple of likely guesses and leave it to you to confirm which is
the interpretation you mean.

Mike.

>
> Herc


From: |-|ercules on 8 Jun 2010 22:54
"Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:877mhoF24eU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote
>> > "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:875mq5Fd31U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote...
>> >> > On 8/06/2010 5:40 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> >> >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Herc, this is like the channelling stuff you post on youtube. You
> seem
>> >> >>> to think that you're proving something, but it's never clear *why*
> you
>> >> >>> think that.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> We see something like
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> a = b therefore x = 3.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> To which the response is naturally <blink> huh?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Sylvia.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's because you never bother to work things out, you have to be
>> > spoon
>> >> >> fed everything.
>> >> >
>> >> > There's never anything to be worked out. No sense can be extracted
> from
>> >> > nonsense.
>> >> >
>> >> > Sylvia.
>> >>
>> >> The idea was to *appear* nonsense, using an equivalent proof to higher
>> > infinity
>> >> as Cantor used.
>> >>
>> >> The Swan Lager carton contains stubbies of the type of beer that the
>> > cartons don't
>> >> contain their own type of stubby.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes - note that the Swan Lager carton was a *new* carton, i.e. not one
> of
>> > the cartons used in its own construction. No problem then: the
> procedure
>> > gives us a guaranteed new combination of beers in the Swan carton. We
> could
>> > imagine extending the argument to an infinite number of beer
> types/cartons I
>> > suppose, and this would be showing that if we have any map A-->P(A)
> there
>> > will always be an element of P(A) not in the image of the map. ("A" is
> "the
>> > set of beer types").
>
> Look, just above is where I'm agreeing with what you said in your reply (see
> my note below)
>
>> > Of course in practice we could not do this with
>> > infinite beer types due to time/material constraints.
>> >
>> > Or are you saying you want the Swan Lager carton to be included in the
>> > original list used to build itself? Clearly that's physically nonsense.
>> > You might as well ask someone to solve the following puzzle:
>> >
>> > Here is a light switch. You must set it to on/off, satisfying the
>> > following criteria:
>> >
>> > a) you can only have the switch on, if the switch is off
>> > b) you can only have the switch off, if the switch is on
>> >
>> > Maybe you believe this is a deeply profound puzzle with relevance to
>> > Cantor's proof, but in fact it's just a nonsense puzzle with no
> solution.
>> > (And not contributing anything that invalidates Cantor's proof :-)
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Mike.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Mike, there is a very clear interpretation of the Swan Lager carton being
> equivalent
>> to the missing powerset subset in Cantor's powerset proof of higher
> infinity.
>
> Yes - that's exactly what I said originally (see above).
>
>>
>> The way you all find alternate interpretations of my problems and think it
> dismisses
>> the issue is childish and bothersome.
>
> I find other interpretations, because you aren't clear in what you write.
> So I make a couple of likely guesses and leave it to you to confirm which is
> the interpretation you mean.
>

You said the Swan Lager carton was not included in the experiment, and if it was
it would be nonsense.

Not only did you deliberately go out of your way find to find an ambiguous meaningless case, (pun intended)
you discredited the simple equivalent analogy to Cantor's proof.

Next time you want to clarify my interpretation just ask.

Herc
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Z is not naturally ordered?
Next: A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof