THE HOLY GRAIL ~ CANTOR DISPROOF
in [Physics]
|
Prev: A tribute to Martin Gardner
Next: Virgo, Fornax and Hydra-Cen superclusters Chapt 11, Space is EM; magnet & iron filings Experiment #108; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 25 May 2010 13:11 Transfer Principle <lwalke3(a)lausd.net> writes: > On May 24, 1:40�pm, Herc7 <ozd...(a)australia.edu> wrote: > >> Try answering the question I put forth to you 3 days ago. >> If the computable reals can be shuffled to fit any randomly >> generated diagonal > > I have yet to see a valid proof in ZFC that this holds. There is none. As you note diagonalising a list of the computable reals always results in an irrational, simply by observing all rationals are computable. > Notice that Herc/Cooper claims to have proved it, Notice that Herc/Cooper claims to be both Genesis Adam and Truman, reports he hears voices, professes to have psychic abilities, etc. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Don Stockbauer on 25 May 2010 14:45 On May 25, 12:11 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Transfer Principle <lwal...(a)lausd.net> writes: > > On May 24, 1:40 pm, Herc7 <ozd...(a)australia.edu> wrote: > > >> Try answering the question I put forth to you 3 days ago. > >> If the computable reals can be shuffled to fit any randomly > >> generated diagonal > > > I have yet to see a valid proof in ZFC that this holds. > > There is none. As you note diagonalising a list of the computable reals > always results in an irrational, simply by observing all rationals are > computable. > > > Notice that Herc/Cooper claims to have proved it, > > Notice that Herc/Cooper claims to be both Genesis Adam and Truman, > reports he hears voices, professes to have psychic abilities, etc. Now, now, now. Let's not fall victim to the "Argument Against the Man" (er, Person, nowadays).
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 25 May 2010 15:21 Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com> writes: > Now, now, now. Let's not fall victim to the "Argument Against the > Man" (er, Person, nowadays). In this instance the information that Herc appears to be clinically insane is salient. Recall the nature of lwalker's valiant quest. He wants to vindicate people who get called (mathematical) cranks by other people by finding theories in which their unorthodox claims are provable. This sort of vindication obviously can work only if these theories have some actual connection to the thinking of the getting-called-a-crank sort of person in question. And as lwalke admits, it's possible these people are, in fact, just wrong about standard stuff, sometimes they simply don't like the mathematical facts, sometimes they are utter nutters, and so on, in which case the search for an appropriate vindicating theory is futile or irrelevant. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: Virgil on 25 May 2010 20:27 In article <87vdabu6r4.fsf(a)dialatheia.truth.invalid>, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote: > Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > Now, now, now. Let's not fall victim to the "Argument Against the > > Man" (er, Person, nowadays). > > In this instance the information that Herc appears to be clinically > insane is salient. Recall the nature of lwalker's valiant quest. He > wants to vindicate people who get called (mathematical) cranks by other > people by finding theories in which their unorthodox claims are > provable. This sort of vindication obviously can work only if these > theories have some actual connection to the thinking of the > getting-called-a-crank sort of person in question. And as lwalke admits, > it's possible these people are, in fact, just wrong about standard > stuff, sometimes they simply don't like the mathematical facts, > sometimes they are utter nutters, and so on, in which case the search > for an appropriate vindicating theory is futile or irrelevant. I suppose that even a total and actual nutter could be accidentally right once in a long, long while. Though, of course, one would be foolish to count on it.
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 25 May 2010 21:33
"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Aren't you the logician who proved that there is a formal proof for > every informal proof.... errr... with an informal proof? You're thinking of someone else. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus |