Prev: "Book Smart" NP-Complete Method: Musatov is closing in... Gaining... People are starting to talk...
Next: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?
From: Ostap Bender on 2 Jun 2010 02:02
On May 22, 4:22 pm, Herc7 <ozd...(a)australia.edu> wrote:
> On May 22, 2:45 am, Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> wrote:
>
> > I liked it better back when Herc was trying to disprove Cantor
> > rather than prove Genesis because Cantor, unlike Genesis, is
> > actually pertinent to sci._math_.
>
> OK then.  If the computable reals can be shuffled to fit any randomly
> generated diagonal, how can you prove ANYTHING from the value of the
> diagonal given the information entropy of a random number is 0.
> Herc
>

Judging by the excruciating number of posts about Cantor in sci.math,
he must be the greatest scientist in the history of the world.
From: Transfer Principle on 2 Jun 2010 16:19
On Jun 1, 1:45 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
> "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> writes:
> > So is there a flaw with the following?
> There's no flaw. It's just nonsense.

Now this seems to indicate that Herc is in Case 4, which
states that Herc is so confused that he posts "nonsense"
that is "not even wrong."

The fact that it's so hard to determine which case Cooper
is in is one reason that I might stop referring to the
cases altogether and find new ways to address his argument.

(Then again, I don't know whether there's any way that I
can address "nonsense" that's "not even wrong.")
From: |-|ercules on 2 Jun 2010 20:52
"Transfer Principle" <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> wrote...
> On Jun 1, 1:45 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote:
>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> writes:
>> > So is there a flaw with the following?
>> There's no flaw. It's just nonsense.
>
> Now this seems to indicate that Herc is in Case 4, which
> states that Herc is so confused that he posts "nonsense"
> that is "not even wrong."
>
> The fact that it's so hard to determine which case Cooper
> is in is one reason that I might stop referring to the
> cases altogether and find new ways to address his argument.
>
> (Then again, I don't know whether there's any way that I
> can address "nonsense" that's "not even wrong.")


You think the simplest computer model is nonsense?

Herc
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Jun 2010 21:42
On 6/2/10 7:52 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>
> You think the simplest computer model is nonsense?

Especially if it doesn't model physical theory or process!
From: |-|ercules on 3 Jun 2010 02:42
"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote

> A=target(P) and P=target(A)

this should be assign := not equals.

A:=target(P) and P:=target(A)

Herc
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: "Book Smart" NP-Complete Method: Musatov is closing in... Gaining... People are starting to talk...
Next: Was Einstein Guilty of Scientific Fraud?