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: |-|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
From: George Greene on 4 Jun 2010 00:55
On Jun 3, 7:07 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 are LYING. Every digit sequence TO EVERY FINITE length is in the computable list of reals. THERE ARE PLENTY of reals (most of them, in fact) that differ from EVERY computable real at SOME FINITE point in the list! That fact that something holds TO EVERY FINITE position in a list does NOT mean it holds "To infinite" length or "to infinite" position. Your capitalizing it is not going to help. > > You can live with that suggestion of a contradiction, It's ONLY a SUGGESTION, dumbass. It's not AN ACTUAL contradiction. It LOOKS like one TO YOU because YOU'RE STUPID. > apparently you think > 'in the actual infinite expansion' some sequence is missing, We don't just think this. We can prove it. The computable reals CAN BE ENUMERATED, DUMBASS. > but your entire belief > in logic is all about 'dark numbers'. The majority of real numbers that "can't be seen". It is NOT that they can't be SEEN! It is that they ARE INFINITE and so canNOT be SPECIFIED by a FINITE description! If they can't be "seen", then that would not be because they are "dark", but rather because HUMANS only have FINITE eyes and brains! > > Herc |