Prev: Collatz conjecture
Next: Beginner-ish question
From: David R Tribble on 10 Jun 2010 23:48
Tony Orlow wrote:
> Hi Transfer -
> I was wondering what thoughts you had on the countably infinitely long
> complete list of digital strings, if anything.

That would be the countable list of all finite-length digital strings,
wouldn't it? Or would it be the uncountable list of all infinite-
length
digital strings?

There's a simple test to tell the difference between the two.
The finite digital string .3 (or if you like, its equivalent "value"
string, 0.3000...) exists in the first (countable) list; the
infinite digital string .333... exists in the second (uncountable)
list.

The second test is to find the successor (or, if you prefer, the
predecessor) to each of those strings within their lists.
From: Brian Chandler on 11 Jun 2010 00:07
David R Tribble wrote:
>
> Tony Orlow wrote:
> > Yes.
> > E 0
> > E 1
> > 0<1
> > x<y -> E z: x<z<y
> >
> > This leads to some level of infinites between counting numbers.
>
> That's hard to believe. The only thing that your definitions do
> is define two numbers, 0 and 1, and an order relation for them.
> Where are all of the rest of the reals? Or even the naturals?

Well, his last line seems to say that there is also z, such that 0 < z
< 1. For example, the binary fractions would surely fit his
definition.

Brian Chandler
From: David R Tribble on 11 Jun 2010 00:18
Tony Orlow wrote:
> "Disingenuous" means "lying". I believe Transfer's comment falls into
> the category of a best-guess interpretation of Moe's motives. You,
> Moe, Virgie, The Tribble and others seem completely closed to the
> concept of any improvement on the standard obfuscation.

That would be presumptuous on your part, to assume what
we seem to be thinking. TP (L Walker) does a lot of that.

Where have any of us ever said anything to mean that we are
not open to any improvement on standard theory? Where?

In point of fact, you accuse us of being closed-minded only
because we reject ill-defined or incoherent ideas. Specifically,
your ideas.

Meanwhile, you reject the well-defined and easily comprehensible
concepts of Cantor, which have survived over a hundred years
of close scrutiny and development, pretty much because you
simply don't feel that they are "intuitive" enough for you.

So who is being close-minded?
From: David R Tribble on 11 Jun 2010 00:21
Tony Orlow wrote:
> For, "none
> shall drive us from the Garden which Cantor has created for us". If it
> doesn't produce fruit, it's time to plant a new bed, or at least
> fertilize.

Well, it's done pretty well for the last 100+ years. Have any
of your ideas produced any results of consequence yet?

I'm still waiting to hear what bigulosity/IFR says about the size
of the set of natural squares. Any results yet?
From: David R Tribble on 11 Jun 2010 00:33
David R Tribble writes:
>> So then what is the *general* case for IFR?
>

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> Could someone remind me what IFR stands for?

I don't remember what Tony's "IFR" stands for, either. Something
about a "formulaic ratio" or some such.

The funny thing about this is that this does not seem to matter
in the least. Tony keeps saying that IFR solves all sorts of
problems and "obfuscations" with Cantor's cardinalities, yet
he hasn't given a single concrete example of it.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Prev: Collatz conjecture
Next: Beginner-ish question