Prev: Longitude determination with an astrolabe
Next: constructible = unconstructible
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
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Longitude determination with an astrolabe
Next: constructible = unconstructible