New Anti-Cantor Attack
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Meami.org Publishes Polynomial Time Quicksort Algortihm:
Next: Methods of Proving all of Incompleteness in Logic in Trivially Short Proofs & a Challenge
From: |-|ercules on 29 May 2010 23:53 <porky_pig_jr(a)my-deja.com> wrote ... > On May 29, 10:58 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> And voila, > > you mean "accordion", I presume. > > PPJ. This is a serous attempt at a refutation of Cantor's powerset proof of the existence of higher infinities. The powerset proof is exactly this: Assume a large/infinite room full of boxes with fridge magnets in the boxes that are any natural number, and the boxes have a unique number written on them. "Which box contains the numbers of all the boxes that don't contain their own number?" is proven (by Cantor) to be nonexistent. So extrapolate how that demonstrates higher infinities for me? Your evasion of showing a distinction between my spoof proof and Cantor's proof is noted, also your or anybody's evasion to dispute my other 3 claims: >> Disproof of the nonexistence of a halting algorithm, >> disproof of the turing machine not being decomposable into simpler >> computations, disproof that godels proof demonstrates people can >> understand more facts than a formal system, disproof that no answer >> to "which box contains the numbers of all the boxes that don't contain >> their own number?" implies a set larger than infinity You're all talk sci.math, either prove ZFC is complete and factual or address the questions. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 29 May 2010 23:54 "Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... > |-|ercules says... >> >>"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... >>> |-|ercules says... >>>> >>>>Cantor's second proof of 'uncountable infinity' is based on trying to >enumerate >>>>the powerset of naturals. >>> >>> [stuff deleted] >>> >>>>Here's my equivalent proof of uncountable infinity. >>> >>> This is an instance of a general theorem: for every correct >>> proof, there exists an incorrect proof that looks the same >>> to the mathematically incompetent. >> >> >>Not your usual stuff Daryl, handwaving and ad homs. > > I'm sorry, but your post was too stupid to merit more than that. > good advice! Herc
From: Sylvia Else on 29 May 2010 23:58 On 30/05/2010 1:52 PM, Marshall wrote: > On May 29, 7:58 pm, "|-|ercules"<radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Cantor's second proof of 'uncountable infinity' is based on trying to enumerate the powerset of naturals. >> >> e.g. >> P(N) = { >> 1 - {1}, >> 2 - {1,2}, >> 3 - {2}, >> 4 - {1,2,3} >> ... >> >> } >> >> The set of indexes that aren't members of their subset is >> {3,4} >> in this finite subset example. >> >> And voila, {3,4} is a new subset not present in P(N). >> >> Therefore no matter how big P(N) is there is always a new element >> that can be listed and therefore the size of the set P(N) is bigger than infinity. >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Here's my equivalent proof of uncountable infinity. >> >> Let's assume an enumeration of naturals exists, call it N. >> >> N= { >> 1, >> 2, >> 3, >> 4, >> ... >> >> } >> >> Let's calculate a new natural MAX+1. > > What is MAX? You just start using it without saying anything > about what it is, or where it comes from. > > > Marshall He's just proving that the naturals are not a finite set. Sylvia.
From: Charlie-Boo on 30 May 2010 00:58 On May 29, 11:49 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > |-|ercules says... > > > > > > > > >"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com> wrote ... > >> |-|ercules says... > > >>>Cantor's second proof of 'uncountable infinity' is based on trying to >enumerate > >>>the powerset of naturals. > > >> [stuff deleted] > > >>>Here's my equivalent proof of uncountable infinity. > > >> This is an instance of a general theorem: for every correct > >> proof, there exists an incorrect proof that looks the same > >> to the mathematically incompetent. > > >Not your usual stuff Daryl, handwaving and ad homs. > > I'm sorry, but your post was too stupid to merit more than that. The more stupider it is, the easier it is to refute so you should give a more complete explanation of how it is stupid. If it is trivial then you have no reason to spend the same number of keystrokes at ridicule as is needed for the full proof. C-B > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Transfer Principle on 30 May 2010 01:07
On May 29, 7:23 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 8:45 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > > We'll see about that. > Ahem. I stand corrected. > > Then what should I do the next time someone makes a claim > > that is refuted by ZFC? > You should say what you think the truth is, and why. The posts today by Marshall Spight and others have convinced me that Herc/Cooper isn't worth defending. And so let me do as Spight has suggested, and say what I think the truth about Cooper's proof attempt is, and why. I am not trying to bully Herc by posting the following, but merely following Spight's suggestion. Earlier, Herc provided the following link to his proof: |