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 17:40 On Jun 30, 1:54 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Which of these is a logical formula? > > 1/ ((a -> b) & (b -> c) -> (a -> c) > 2/ (a = 2) -> (a > 1) Neither. 1 is not well-formed because it has 4 left parentheses and only 3 right ones. 2 contains "=" which is NOT a logical symbol.
From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 18:11 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > 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. HAHAHA. Are you really that stupid to assume induction on both forms is the same too? Does the list 0.0 0.1 0.2 .... 0.9 0.10 0.11 .... 0.99 0.101 .... use this induction schema too? phi( <[1] 2 3 4...> ) & An ((phi ( <[1 2 ... n] n+1 n+2 ...>) -> phi( <[1 2 ... n n+1] n+2 n+3 ...> )) -> phi( <[1 2 3 4...]> ) Herc
From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 18:13 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > 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!!! > That's true for nearly every program, you don't know if it halts, it doesn't mean you can't get the output if it exists. According to your logic, getting output from a program without a proof that it halts is impossible. Your argument only holds water if you are STUPID enough to list all computer outputs SEQUENTIALLY instead of MULTITASKING. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 18:16 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > 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, You CANNOT generate a full list of computable REALS. You CAN generate a full list of computable OUTPUTS. > > 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! Is that why you snipped what I was refuting? That the list is REAL, you can GET this list, but not from a computer. Your words dumbass. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 30 Jun 2010 18:25
"George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote > On Jun 30, 1:54 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Which of these is a logical formula? >> >> 1/ ((a -> b) & (b -> c) -> (a -> c) >> 2/ (a = 2) -> (a > 1) > > Neither. > 1 is not well-formed because it has 4 left parentheses and only 3 > right ones. > 2 contains "=" which is NOT a logical symbol. You just reached troll status on Transfer Principle's scale, not accepting Peano Arithmetic as a sound theory. Herc |