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: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 01:09 "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote > Are there 2 (possibily) distinct proofs under discussion here or not? By (possibly) I mean if my 'proof' was up to the formal rigor of George's parlance. George seems to be disputing that a/ increasing finite distinct objects b/ increasing samples of the same object have any different form when applying induction. He thinks these are equivalent regarding induction. <1 2 3> FINITE SEQUENCE < [1 2 3] 4 5 6 7 ..> FINITE PREFIX But his argument seems to be based on the lack of proof presented. Rewriting the proof is of little use here, so I ask. Herc
From: Dingo on 30 Jun 2010 01:28 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:32:13 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: You mean my sig is permanent, or ever increasing? Herc -- > There IS NOT a computer program that lists the outputs of all computer programs! WRONG! > The LIST of computable reals exists, but howEVER you got it, you DIDN'T get it from a computer. GEORGE GREENE DEFIES LOGIC YET AGAIN! -- Correction - it's your brain that rejects logic or simply is unable to recognise it.
From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 01:54 "Dingo" <dingo(a)gmail.com> wrote ... > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:32:13 +1000, "|-|ercules" > <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > You mean my sig is permanent, or ever increasing? > > Herc > -- >> There IS NOT a computer program that lists the outputs of all computer programs! > WRONG! > >> The LIST of computable reals exists, but howEVER you got it, you DIDN'T get it from a computer. > GEORGE GREENE DEFIES LOGIC YET AGAIN! > > -- > > Correction - it's your brain that rejects logic or simply is unable to > recognise it. Which of these is a logical formula? 1/ ((a -> b) & (b -> c) -> (a -> c) 2/ (a = 2) -> (a > 1) Herc
From: George Greene on 30 Jun 2010 16:29 On Jun 30, 12:40 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > So you like my default_finite_prefix now? No, DUMBASS, I don't LIKE it. Saying that it is equivalent to something I DO like does NOT mean I LIKE it. It means YOU'RE AN IDIOT for making up A NEW term for something that THE OLD terms were already PERFECTLY GOOD FOR discussing. > YOU are saying DFP and FS are equivalent, Right. > once again you find a stupid referent instead > of what is being discussed, sequences Vs prefixes. You ARE NOT discussing sequences VERSUS prefixes, because THAT IS *NOT*POSSIBLE*, BECAUSE THEY ARE *THE*SAME*!!
From: George Greene on 30 Jun 2010 16:30
On Jun 30, 12:40 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > <1 2 3> FINITE SEQUENCE > > is not the same form as > > < [1 2 3] 4 5 6 7 ..> FINITE PREFIX The 1 2 3 part IS the same -- EXACTLY the same. Dumbass. |