My FINAL Cantor thread!
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Incompleteness thru Venn Diagrams
Next: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA is Consistent (EASY PROOF)
From: Mike Terry on 24 Jun 2010 20:18 "Graham Cooper" <grahamcooper7(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:df261549-3c6e-4f4d-844e-65f14cbfa8b3(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > Consider the list of computable reals. > > > > Let w = the digit width of the largest set > > of complete permutations > > > > assume w is finite > > there are 10 computable copies of the > > complete permutations of width w > > each ending in each of digits 0..9 (at position w+1) > > which generates a set larger than width w > > so finite w cannot be the maximum size > > > > therefore w is infinite > > ---- or there is no largest set of complete permutations. E.g. have you considered the possibility that: 1) all 1 digit permutations are in the list 2) all 2 digit permutations are in the list ... 3) all n digit permutations are in the list ... 4) not all (countably) infinite permutations are in the list Then your w does not exist. Regards, Mike. > > you should recognize this form of induction > > no maximum Natural number implies > there are infinite quantity of Natural numbers > > IS TO > > no maximum digit width of all full permutation sets implies > there is infinite digit width of all permutations > (of computable reals) > > THEREFORE > > modifying the diagonal of the list of computable reals > does not construct a new digit sequence > > Herc
From: Graham Cooper on 24 Jun 2010 20:28 On Jun 25, 9:10 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jun 24, 6:50 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Consider the list of computable reals. > > > > > > Let w = the digit width of the largest set > > > of complete permutations > > > > > > assume w is finite > > This is just idiotic. > Every real is infinitely wide BY DEFINITION, > and again, this width is, BY DEFINITION, THE SMALLEST infinity, > so w is KNOWN IN ADVANCE NOT to be finite. Use another letter. I have not defined w to be the width of any real. w is the max width of the set of sets of reals that contain every possible sequence for some digit width. Herc
From: Graham Cooper on 24 Jun 2010 20:49 On Jun 25, 10:18 am, "Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:df261549-3c6e-4f4d-844e-65f14cbfa8b3(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > Consider the list of computable reals. > > > > Let w = the digit width of the largest set > > > of complete permutations > > > > assume w is finite > > > there are 10 computable copies of the > > > complete permutations of width w > > > each ending in each of digits 0..9 (at position w+1) > > > which generates a set larger than width w > > > so finite w cannot be the maximum size > > > > therefore w is infinite > > > ---- > > or there is no largest set of complete permutations. > > E.g. have you considered the possibility that: > 1) all 1 digit permutations are in the list > 2) all 2 digit permutations are in the list > ... > 3) all n digit permutations are in the list > ... > 4) not all (countably) infinite permutations are in the list > > Then your w does not exist. > > Regards, > Mike. Yes but there is unlimited width to the complete sets of possible sequences should imply there is unlimited width of all sequences. Distinguishing the 2 and claiming you construct a new sequence anyway is a narrow viewpoint. Herc
From: Mike Terry on 25 Jun 2010 15:02 "Graham Cooper" <grahamcooper7(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d705aded-4c8b-4edb-916b-0cb74c721ea1(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 25, 10:18 am, "Mike Terry" > <news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > > "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:df261549-3c6e-4f4d-844e-65f14cbfa8b3(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > Consider the list of computable reals. > > > > > > Let w = the digit width of the largest set > > > > of complete permutations > > > > > > assume w is finite > > > > there are 10 computable copies of the > > > > complete permutations of width w > > > > each ending in each of digits 0..9 (at position w+1) > > > > which generates a set larger than width w > > > > so finite w cannot be the maximum size > > > > > > therefore w is infinite > > > > ---- > > > > or there is no largest set of complete permutations. > > > > E.g. have you considered the possibility that: > > 1) all 1 digit permutations are in the list > > 2) all 2 digit permutations are in the list > > ... > > 3) all n digit permutations are in the list > > ... > > 4) not all (countably) infinite permutations are in the list > > > > Then your w does not exist. > > > > Regards, > > Mike. > > Yes but there is unlimited width to the complete sets of possible > sequences Correct. (i.e. we're both agreeing as far as step (3) above.) > should imply there is unlimited width of all sequences. Aaaargh, now you've gone back to unclear mode. What does "unlimited width of all sequences" mean? Whatever it means, it obviously does not imply all (countably) infinite permutations are in the list, because that's obviously false. (Not even 1 infinite digit permuatation is in the list :-) So... it seems I'm right - there is no "largest set of complete permutations", and so your w does not exist. > > Distinguishing the 2 and claiming you construct a new sequence > anyway is a narrow viewpoint. I'm not claiming that yet, just that your "proof" breaks down at its second line: Let w = the digit width of the largest set of complete permutations There is no largest set, so w doesn't exist. You could now redefine w so that it does exist, and present a new argument using this w. Or you could maybe restate your argument without using w. But as things are right now your argument doesn't work... Mike. > > Herc >
From: Mike Terry on 25 Jun 2010 18:11
"Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote in message news:4pydnUChP7f9YLnRnZ2dnUVZ7sgAAAAA(a)brightview.co.uk... > "Graham Cooper" <grahamcooper7(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:d705aded-4c8b-4edb-916b-0cb74c721ea1(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 25, 10:18 am, "Mike Terry" > > <news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: > > > "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > news:df261549-3c6e-4f4d-844e-65f14cbfa8b3(a)a30g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > Consider the list of computable reals. > > > > > > > > Let w = the digit width of the largest set > > > > > of complete permutations > > > > > > > > assume w is finite > > > > > there are 10 computable copies of the > > > > > complete permutations of width w > > > > > each ending in each of digits 0..9 (at position w+1) > > > > > which generates a set larger than width w > > > > > so finite w cannot be the maximum size > > > > > > > > therefore w is infinite > > > > > ---- > > > > > > or there is no largest set of complete permutations. > > > > > > E.g. have you considered the possibility that: > > > 1) all 1 digit permutations are in the list > > > 2) all 2 digit permutations are in the list > > > ... > > > 3) all n digit permutations are in the list > > > ... > > > 4) not all (countably) infinite permutations are in the list > > > > > > Then your w does not exist. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Mike. > > > > Yes but there is unlimited width to the complete sets of possible > > sequences > > Correct. (i.e. we're both agreeing as far as step (3) above.) > > > should imply there is unlimited width of all sequences. > > Aaaargh, now you've gone back to unclear mode. What does "unlimited width > of all sequences" mean? > > Whatever it means, it obviously does not imply all (countably) infinite > permutations are in the list, because that's obviously false. (Not even 1 > infinite digit permuatation is in the list :-) Well maybe *some* infinite digit permutations, since you start off "Consider the list of computable reals". So I think you mean for *all* computable reals to be included? This is OK because I agree the computable reals *can* be listed, although in this case you do not have a "computable list". (Also, be aware that there are many possible lists of computable reals, so you'd be better starting "Consider *a* list of all computable reals".) In any case, the list does not have any *uncomputable* reals in it, and these are of "width" omega (first infinite ordinal). So (4) above is still correct, and your w does not exist. OR... maybe you have a secret proof that *all* infinite digit sequences are computable? Regards, Mike. > > > So... it seems I'm right - there is no "largest set of complete > permutations", and so your w does not exist. > > > > > Distinguishing the 2 and claiming you construct a new sequence > > anyway is a narrow viewpoint. > > I'm not claiming that yet, just that your "proof" breaks down at its second > line: > > Let w = the digit width of the largest set of complete permutations > > There is no largest set, so w doesn't exist. > > You could now redefine w so that it does exist, and present a new argument > using this w. Or you could maybe restate your argument without using w. > But as things are right now your argument doesn't work... > > Mike. > > > > > > Herc > > > > |