THE HOLY GRAIL ~ CANTOR DISPROOF
in [Math]
|
Prev: Simple permutation question
Next: INFINITE LIST OF PRIME NUMBERS BY PLACEMENT BY NEW -1TANGENT MATHEMATICS
From: Aatu Koskensilta on 1 Jun 2010 16:45 "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: > So is there a flaw with the following? There's no flaw. It's just nonsense. -- Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi) "Wovon man nicht sprechan kann, dar�ber muss man schweigen" - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
From: |-|ercules on 1 Jun 2010 17:41 "Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta(a)uta.fi> wrote > "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> So is there a flaw with the following? > > There's no flaw. It's just nonsense. You disputed that it proved a smaller computation unit than the Turing Machine fetch cycle, yes? Herc
From: herbzet on 1 Jun 2010 23:59 Aatu Koskensilta wrote: > Transfer Principle writes: > > > We know that posters don't want to be bullied, and we know that > > they don't want to be patronized. > > I want to be bullied and patronized. Bite me, sweetheart. -- hz
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.") |