Why can no one in sci.math understand my simple point?
in [Logic]
|
From: Daryl McCullough on 15 Jun 2010 15:41 WM says... > >On 15 Jun., 18:57, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > >> >> >We should not use oracles in mathematics. >> >> On the contrary! Many real numbers in physics are not computable >> to infinite precision (for example, the fine structure constant). > >Numbers are computable. The fine structure constant is a name. It has >soem 20 letters. I can see that you don't understand the distinction between use and mention. "Daryl" is a name having five letters. Daryl is a human being. You constantly amaze me with all the subjects that you fail to understand. Look, it's been a blast talking to you, but to get you up to speed on this subject would really require several years of study on your part. I don't have time to educate you. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 15 Jun 2010 15:43 WM says... > >On 15 Jun., 19:27, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> WM <mueck...(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: >> > On 15 Jun., 16:23, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> writes: >> >> > So (B) is equivalent to the statement "there exists an uncomputable >> >> > number". >> >> >> Right. But why then did you say the number was computable? >> >> > And in what form does it exist? >> >> This question seems utterly meaningless. > >That may be the impression of cranks who prefer believing things >rather than knowing them. I think you misunderstand the use of the word "crank". It's a pejorative word to describe people like YOU. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Daryl McCullough on 15 Jun 2010 15:46 |-|ercules says... > >"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016(a)yahoo.com> wrote... >> That's *all* that matters, for Cantor's theorem. The claim >> is that for every list of reals, there is another real >> that does not appear on the list. > > >Yes but HOW does Cantor show that? You've been told many times. He shows that for every list L of reals, there is another real antidiag(L) that is defined in such a way that forall n, antidiag(L) differs from the nth real in L at the nth decimal place. From this, it follows: forall n, antidiag(L) is not equal to the nth real. From this, it follows: antidiag(L) is not on the list L. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Virgil on 15 Jun 2010 15:59 In article <68604ffc-a1d2-4854-a72c-46f0e5e7e5d4(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 15 Jun., 08:15, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > No. You cannot form a list of all computable Reals. If you could do this, > > then you could use a diagonal argument to construct a computable Real not in > > the list. > > Twice no. First, a number cannot be defined by an infinite sequence of > digits, because of practical reasons. (To define means to let somebody > know what is meant.) Perhaps not in WM's minimath, but it is quite possible and frequently enough done in regular math to be standard. >Second the list of all real definitions cannot > have a diagonal because at least two lines have only one symbol. There is no such thing as a "list of all real definitions" because if there were, one could create a real not in it. > > Here is a list that contains not only every computable real number but > also every possible definition of every item that can be defined. > > 0 > 1 > 00 > 01 > 10 > 11 > 000 > ... That list does not appear to contain any reals between 0 and 1, or, if they are all in [0,1], it does not contain any reals greater than 1. So WM is still as far off his rocker as ever!
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 15 Jun 2010 15:58
WM <mueckenh(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > On 15 Jun., 19:27, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> WM <mueck...(a)rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: >> > On 15 Jun., 16:23, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> writes: >> >> > So (B) is equivalent to the statement "there exists an uncomputable >> >> > number". >> >> >> Right. But why then did you say the number was computable? >> >> > And in what form does it exist? >> >> This question seems utterly meaningless. > > That may be the impression of cranks who prefer believing things > rather than knowing them. > If someone says that somethings exists, then he should be able to > explain what that means. > For numbers existence is easily proved by giving the value. For > uncomputable numbers the existence-question is justified. Funny how you snipped the rest of my post. I invite you to answer it. In what form does the barbecue pork bun I'm eating exist? To be fair, that bun does not exist any longer, but let's pretend I'm still eating it. In what form does it exist? What answer would one give? -- "So yeah, do the wrong math, and use the ring of algebraic integers wrong, without understanding its quirks and real mathematical properties, and you can think you proved Fermat's Last Theorem when you didn't." -- James S. Harris on hobbies |