My FINAL Cantor thread!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Baby sitting and teaching was Re: Hard Encryption was Re: FamilyValues was Re: Oh Slider(s)
Next: Betamax was Re: Details was Re: Baby sitting and teaching was Re:Hard Encryption was Re: Family Values was Re: Oh Slider(s)
From: Dingo on 29 Jun 2010 22:37 On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:28:38 -0700 (PDT), George Greene <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: >On Jun 27, 7:16�am, "Mike Terry" ><news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: >> That's not the way you defined w at the start of the thread. > >THAT is NOT the issue! The issue IS that this definition IS >INCOHERENT! >Was the one at the start any better???? > >And I still insist you can't tolerate "w" as the letter for this, >because w IS ACTUALLY THE RIGHT width ("w" is ascii for >lower-case-greek omega, WHICH IS RIGHT). But w as he is trying to >define >it is too meaningless to be wrong -- you cannot define "w" OR ANYTHING >ELSE >as the maximum of a series THAT DOES NOT HAVE a maximum! You're never going to convince Herc he's mistaken or imagining things - that is one of the indicators of his mental illness.
From: |-|ercules on 29 Jun 2010 22:49 "Dingo" <dingo(a)gmail.com> wrote ... > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:28:38 -0700 (PDT), George Greene > <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > >>On Jun 27, 7:16 am, "Mike Terry" >><news.dead.person.sto...(a)darjeeling.plus.com> wrote: >>> That's not the way you defined w at the start of the thread. >> >>THAT is NOT the issue! The issue IS that this definition IS >>INCOHERENT! >>Was the one at the start any better???? >> >>And I still insist you can't tolerate "w" as the letter for this, >>because w IS ACTUALLY THE RIGHT width ("w" is ascii for >>lower-case-greek omega, WHICH IS RIGHT). But w as he is trying to >>define >>it is too meaningless to be wrong -- you cannot define "w" OR ANYTHING >>ELSE >>as the maximum of a series THAT DOES NOT HAVE a maximum! > > You're never going to convince Herc he's mistaken or imagining things > - that is one of the indicators of his mental illness. Dingo agrees with George Greene that definitions must only be of real possible entities. There you go George, strength in numbers, a drunkard yobbo troll agrees with you. 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!
From: Dingo on 29 Jun 2010 23:53 On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:49:17 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Dingo agrees with George Greene that definitions must only be of real possible entities. I said no such thing, fool. >There you go George, strength in numbers, a drunkard yobbo troll agrees with you. My lawyers have been notified - I may be a drunkard but I'm no yobbo!
From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 00:20 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > the set contains only computable numbers, EVERY element in it misses > EVERY NON-computable real in AN INFINITE number of places. This is not the scope of the proof, one transfinite supporting exhibit at a time. I'm merely showing the erroneous step of assuming a new sequence of digits, finitely, infinitely, or transinfinitely long can be constructed when all digit sequences already are. Herc
From: George Greene on 30 Jun 2010 00:28
On Jun 29, 6:36 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > EVERY finite sequence IS a finite prefix (of the string > > consisting of itself > > concatenated with ANOTHER 0). > > Let's call that a default_finite_prefix. NO, DUMBASS, WE ARE NOT calling that ANYthing EXCEPT A FINITE SEQUENCE OF DIGITS! THAT'S ALL it is! > Then every finite sequence being a default_finite_prefix does not make them equivalent. Since YOU JUST SAID let's call THAT (a finite digit sequence) "a default finite prefix", THAT DOES make THEM (a finite digit sequence and "a default finite prefix") equivalent. As for every finite sequence being a finite prefix, those are equivalent BECAUSE THEY ARE. NOTHING MAKES them equivalent. Nothing makes 2 equal to 2 -- that's just what "equal" MEANS, DUMBASS. It is just a fact about finite sequences that YOU CAN ALWAYS ADD ANOTHER ELEMENT TO THE SEQUENCE. There is always a NEXT finite natural number. SO THEY ARE ALL prefixes! WHETHER YOU like it OR NOT! > You prove a property for increasing different objects. > > I sample larger and larger sizes of the one object. Different style of proof! YOURS, DUMBASS, IS NOT a proof. The conclusion does not follow. YOU DON'T KNOW what induction is. Induction proves that something holds FOR ALL of some things. In this case, it would be FOR ALL finite "larger and larger sizes", IF you were doing an inductive proof. But what you are CLAIMING to have proved is something that holds FOR INFINITY, NOT for FINITE sizes! |