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: Daryl McCullough on 29 May 2010 23:32 |-|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. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: |-|ercules on 29 May 2010 23:36 "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. Yes I know it's such a simple yet equivalent logical deduction of 'bigger than infinity' and really shows how dumb Cantor subscribers are to miss that, but the fundamental mathematical truths are generally quite simple. Herc
From: porky_pig_jr on 29 May 2010 23:42 On May 29, 10:58 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > And voila, you mean "accordion", I presume. PPJ.
From: Daryl McCullough on 29 May 2010 23:49 |-|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. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Marshall on 29 May 2010 23:52
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 |