*NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE* is an OXYMORON!
in [Logic]
|
Prev: All you have to do is c o m p r e h e n d this statement and diagonalisation falls apart
Next: Fallacy of missing subjunctive -- what's it called?
From: Graham Cooper on 14 Jun 2010 13:52 On Jun 15, 3:15 am, Colin <colinpoa...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Wow, such vitriol! Yet everyone seems to be ingoring the fundamental > error that Herc is making. What he's saying is this: > > Let S be an infinite sequence of digits. Herc claims that > > (1) for every natural number n, there is an algorithm f s.t. f(n)= the > nth digit in S > > implies > > (2) there is an algorithm f s.t. for every natural number n, f(n)= the > nth digit in S. > > But (1) definitely does not imply (2), and Herc is committing a very > basic quantifier shift fallacy. There are special cases where 1 does not imply 2 3 31 314 ... This list contains every digit of pi similarly computable sequences contain every digit of every possible sequence therefore this argument does not hold 123 456 789 diag = 159 antidiag = 260 new digit sequence Herc
From: George Greene on 14 Jun 2010 16:15 On Jun 14, 1:52 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 15, 3:15 am, Colin <colinpoa...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Wow, such vitriol! Yet everyone seems to be ingoring the fundamental > > error that Herc is making. What he's saying is this: > > > Let S be an infinite sequence of digits. Herc claims that > > > (1) for every natural number n, there is an algorithm f s.t. f(n)= the > > nth digit in S > > > implies > > > (2) there is an algorithm f s.t. for every natural number n, f(n)= the > > nth digit in S. > > > But (1) definitely does not imply (2) (1) IS TRUE, PERIOD, and TRIVIALLY so. Herc does not understand why (1) is trivial and therefore IS NOT Asserting (1)! (1) is true because there are 10 algorithms, each of which returns 1 constant digit FOR ALL natural arguments, and one of these 10, EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IT IS, has to be THE RIGHT one for the nth digit of S. Herc does NOT understand this.
From: George Greene on 14 Jun 2010 16:16 On Jun 14, 1:52 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This list contains every digit of pi > > similarly computable sequences contain every digit of every > possible sequence Every possible FINITE sequence, DUMBASS. Since uncomputable sequences ARE ALL INFINITE, this is just irrelevant.
From: George Greene on 14 Jun 2010 16:20 On Jun 14, 2:19 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Every digit of pi is on that list dumbass! > > You know what that means dumbass? OF COURSE WE DO, DUMBASS. BUT *YOU* DON'T!
From: Graham Cooper on 14 Jun 2010 16:55
On Jun 15, 6:16 am, George Greene <gree...(a)email.unc.edu> wrote: > On Jun 14, 1:52 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > This list contains every digit of pi > > > similarly computable sequences contain every digit of every > > possible sequence > > Every possible FINITE sequence, DUMBASS. > Since uncomputable sequences ARE ALL INFINITE, this is just > irrelevant. That is not similar to the statement about pi this list contains every digit of pi (pi is an infinite sequence) similarly Computable sequences contain every digit of every Possible infinite sequence Herc please try to comprehend the above fully before retorting |