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 30 May 2010 06:19 "Transfer Principle" <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> wrote > And even though Herc/Cooper turned out to be not worth > defending in the end, that still doesn't mean that I'm going I'm going to substitute me not being worth defending with my case not being worth defending, and leave you be with this. Herc
From: Marshall on 30 May 2010 10:56 On May 29, 11:00 pm, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote: > On May 29, 7:58 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Before I proceed, one might wonder why I'm going through all > this effort just to prove Herc wrong, since the other thread > already established that Herc is in Case 3 (the case where > we can call him wrong). Well, Herc did ask the question: > > > To eliminate expected confusion I will make my motives explicit, > > the second proof is a spoof of Cantor's proof, if you can find the > > flaw in my proof > > then attacked Spight for failing to answer it: > > > Your [Spight's] evasion of showing a distinction between my spoof > > proof and Cantor's proof is noted .... > I hope that Herc won't take this post as bullying. Herc > asked a question and I gave the answer, which is more > than we can say of Spight, who evaded Herc's question. For the record, the post of Herc's, quoted above, does not appear on my news server. Marshall
From: Alan Smaill on 31 May 2010 05:25 Charlie-Boo <shymathguy(a)gmail.com> writes: > 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. No comment. > C-B > -- Alan Smaill
From: William Hughes on 31 May 2010 09:09 On May 29, 11:58 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 even if the enumeration does not have a last element > 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. Ok, I choose an enumaration that does not have a last element. > > N= { > 1, > 2, > 3, > 4, > ... > > } > > Let's calculate a new natural MAX+1. Can't be done, there is no last element and no max. The difference between the two "proofs" is that in the first case you can do the proof even if the enumeration has no last element. In the second case you can't. - William Hughes
From: Charlie-Boo on 31 May 2010 14:57
On May 29, 11:42 pm, "porky_pig...(a)my-deja.com" <porky_pig...(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. You're thinking about "violin". |