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: |-|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.
From: George Greene on 30 Jun 2010 16:31 On Jun 30, 12:44 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Are you saying a list of every turing machine and it's output is not output of all computer programs? NOT EVERY Turing Machine HAS an output, DUMBASS! SOME Turing Machines LOOP! If you tried to list all the outputs for all the TMs, then FOR SOME of them, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW YET whether it eventually would OR WOULD NOT output ANYthing!!!
From: George Greene on 30 Jun 2010 17:38
On Jun 30, 12:44 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "George Greene" <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > > > On Jun 29, 10:49 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Herc > >> --> There IS NOT a computer program that lists the outputs of all computer programs! > > >> WRONG! You claim to think this is wrong, yet later, you yourself say, > Considering you would require a halt function to generate such a list, EXACTLY. YOU WOULD NEED a "halt function" -- or, equivalently, a LOOP function -- that is, you would need to be able to confirm that a TM was looping -- AND WAS THEREFORE NOT (any longer) in the process of computing a computable real -- in order to generate this list. > it's as real as halt-omega, FOOL! "Halt-omega" IS NOT real, FOOL! If it halts then it halts AFTER A FINITE number of steps, NOT after OMEGA steps! And there IS NO TM that tells you whether other TMs halt or loop! IF THERE WERE, THEN THERE WOULD ALSO be a TM that says, "If my input TM loops, then halt, but if it halts, then loop". And what would this TM do given ITSELF as input?? > Where are you going to get this list? You ARE NOT going to get it -- that's the whole point! That's why YOU OF ALL people (who wants it but wants it because everything ON it IS computable) SHOULD STOP TALKING about it! Especially when there is ANOTHER perfectly good list (of finite sequences) THAT ALSO HAS EVERY finite prefix of EVERY real ON it! You are NOT going to "get" ANY non-computable ANYthing -- real, list, genetic code, whatEVER! But just because your finite brain "can't get" them does NOT mean they are not THERE! |