Prev: Discarded [was: Re: A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof]
Next: Can N be constructed?
From: |-|ercules on 9 Jun 2010 20:42
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote...
> |-|ercules says...
>>
>>"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>>> |-|ercules says...
>>>>
>>>>"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>ALL digit sequences are computable to ALL finite lengths.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, your statement is a muddled mess.
>>>>
>>>>What's not to get?
>>>
>>> Why can't you learn how to use quantifiers? Those make
>>> what you are trying to say much more precise. You need
>>> to take an elementary course in mathematics and logic.
>>> Until then, you can't even ask a question without getting
>>> muddled.
>>>
>>
>>NO dipsh1t. I have a degree in computer science and I am perfectly
>>fine using quantifiers.
>
> No, you are not.
>

I'm about 5,000,000 iq points above you Daryl.

I disproved Halting hypothesis, Godel's argument, Turing's simplest computer model,
and have a formal proof that Cantor's diag proof is flawed ready, all I have to do is find the post
where GG or someone else said numerous digits are different to computable expansions.

And I reduced Cantor's powerset proof to "no box contains the box numbers that don't
contain their own box number -> higher infinity"

If you don't believe me you have 3 options,
a/ Answer the question in the post you just snipped
b/ Give me the worst quantified jargon formula you can find and I'll interpret it for you
c/ Dispute any of my claims above - disproof of Halt, Turing, and Godel!

Herc
From: George Greene on 12 Jun 2010 02:16
On Jun 9, 1:52 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> So you think the antidiagonal comes up with an actual NEW SEQUENCE OF DIGITS

No, we don't merely THINK this, we PROVE it.

> and this does not contradict that ALL sequences of digits are on the computable
> list of reals up to all (an infinite amount of) digit positions?

OF COURSE this would contradict that, IF that were true, but that
ISN'T true.
What IS true is that all FINITE sequences of digits occur as initial
substrings
of computable reals. As soon as you say "up to [any] digit
position",
you are LIMITING yourself to FINITE positions (since ALL the positions
in
any given real ARE A FINITE distance away from the starting end).
Infinity is just not around to generate a contradiction here.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Discarded [was: Re: A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof]
Next: Can N be constructed?