THE HOLY GRAIL ~ CANTOR DISPROOF
in [Logic]
|
Prev: "Book Smart" NP-Complete Method: Musatov is closing in... Gaining... People are starting to talk...
Next: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jun 2010 16:40 On 6/3/10 2:04 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote >> >> Why should we listen to a guy who can't even use an alphabet >> set of symbols to spell his own name correctly? > >> There more efficient ways of modeling physical reality. > > You do realize nobody has managed to correct my grammar without > making a mistake themselves? Yet alone correcting one of my theories! > > What about practical implementation in molecular computers? Wouldn't > the simplest fetch cycle play a role? > > Herc > Read up on quantum computing.
From: |-|ercules on 3 Jun 2010 16:47 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote ... > On 6/3/10 2:04 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote >>> >>> Why should we listen to a guy who can't even use an alphabet >>> set of symbols to spell his own name correctly? >> >>> There more efficient ways of modeling physical reality. >> >> You do realize nobody has managed to correct my grammar without >> making a mistake themselves? Yet alone correcting one of my theories! >> >> What about practical implementation in molecular computers? Wouldn't >> the simplest fetch cycle play a role? >> >> Herc >> > > Read up on quantum computing. why? so I can solve a NP problem of size 3 states? Herc
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jun 2010 16:50 On 6/3/10 3:47 PM, |-|ercules wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote ... >> On 6/3/10 2:04 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>> >>>> Why should we listen to a guy who can't even use an alphabet >>>> set of symbols to spell his own name correctly? >>> >>>> There more efficient ways of modeling physical reality. >>> >>> You do realize nobody has managed to correct my grammar without >>> making a mistake themselves? Yet alone correcting one of my theories! >>> >>> What about practical implementation in molecular computers? Wouldn't >>> the simplest fetch cycle play a role? >>> >>> Herc >>> >> >> Read up on quantum computing. > > why? so I can solve a NP problem of size 3 states? > > Herc I was hoping you were quicker and would note that fetch cycle will one day be obsolete.
From: |-|ercules on 3 Jun 2010 17:05 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote ... > On 6/3/10 3:47 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote ... >>> On 6/3/10 2:04 PM, |-|ercules wrote: >>>> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote >>>>> >>>>> Why should we listen to a guy who can't even use an alphabet >>>>> set of symbols to spell his own name correctly? >>>> >>>>> There more efficient ways of modeling physical reality. >>>> >>>> You do realize nobody has managed to correct my grammar without >>>> making a mistake themselves? Yet alone correcting one of my theories! >>>> >>>> What about practical implementation in molecular computers? Wouldn't >>>> the simplest fetch cycle play a role? >>>> >>>> Herc >>>> >>> >>> Read up on quantum computing. >> >> why? so I can solve a NP problem of size 3 states? >> >> Herc > > I was hoping you were quicker and would note that fetch cycle will > one day be obsolete. when devout morons are proven wrong they usually feign disinterest in the topic after all and cite relevance, but you're really reaching here. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 3 Jun 2010 19:07
"George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote ... > On May 29, 3:46 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Why is the axiomatic method legitimate? > > Why is this question legitimate? > Even if the axiomatic method is ILlegitimate, it still produces the > results it produces. Either you are interested or you are not. > But nobody has any grounds for ATTACKING any of these results. > If you have one s and you put another s on the right of it, then you > get ss. That's just the way IT IS. I think you're a few axioms short of a factual logical system. You need something like, when categorizing the closure / completeness of a set, you give a warranty in fine print, an E&OE that states that self reference and negation of members of the class are omitted. i.e. extrapolating deductions to infinity are not defined. I think there is a class solution to Russell's Paradox that does something like this. e.g. here is a complete list of subsets of N, barring the list's self reference and negation that explicitly defeats the closure of the set, however functionally it has no bearing. Otherwise you end up proving that computable reals can't contain some sequence or another when EVERY DIGIT SEQUENCE TO INFINITE LENGTH IS IN THE COMPUTABLE LIST OF REALS. You can live with that suggestion of a contradiction, apparently you think 'in the actual infinite expansion' some sequence is missing, but your entire belief in logic is all about 'dark numbers'. The majority of real numbers that "can't be seen". Herc |