THE HOLY GRAIL ~ CANTOR DISPROOF
in [Math]
|
Prev: Simple permutation question
Next: INFINITE LIST OF PRIME NUMBERS BY PLACEMENT BY NEW -1TANGENT MATHEMATICS
From: George Greene on 3 Jun 2010 13:19 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.
From: |-|ercules on 3 Jun 2010 15:04 "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
From: Androcles on 3 Jun 2010 15:37 "George Greene" <greeneg(a)email.unc.edu> wrote in message news:7e3b7838-873e-4166-87bb-c4861edb103a(a)e6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... 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. =========================================== True enough, but how are we to know you didn't put the s to the left of the s and get ss instead?
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 |