My FINAL Cantor thread!
in [Math]
|
Prev: Symmetry of BP's economic blowout & scarcity of their product?
Next: Ha! I have no job. I am divorced though. It figures. I will hangmyself
From: George Greene on 30 Jun 2010 00:29 On Jun 29, 11:53 pm, Dingo <di...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 12:49:17 +1000, "|-|ercules" > > <radgray...(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. If Dingo was drunk, then he had an excuse. Herc, on the other hand, well, You Can't Fix Stupid.
From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 00:32 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > Herc, on the other hand, well, You Can't Fix Stupid. 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!
From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 00:40 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > 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. So you like my default_finite_prefix now? You contradicted yourself in less than 40 words. YOU are saying DFP and FS are equivalent, once again you find a stupid referent instead of what is being discussed, sequences Vs prefixes. > > 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! <1 2 3> FINITE SEQUENCE is not the same form as < [1 2 3] 4 5 6 7 ..> FINITE PREFIX > > >> 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! Are you arguing the mechanics here but not the concept? Are there 2 (possibily) distinct proofs under discussion here or not? Herc
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. |