Pol Lux
Posts:
42
Registered:
6/7/10
|
|
Re: A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof
Posted:
Jun 12, 2010 12:30 AM
|
|
On Jun 11, 9:09 pm, Ron <ron.sper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 11:36 pm, Pol Lux <luxp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 10:00 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 7, 10:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Here is an example of diagonalization
>
> > > > 123
> > > > 456
> > > > 789
>
> > > > Diag = 159
>
> > > > AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST!
>
> > > > YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS!
>
> > > It works on EVERY [square] list. PERIOD.
>
> > > > DON'T YOU!!!
>
> > > > Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if there's
> > > > no new digit sequence that can be formed.
>
> > > THERE IS a new digit sequence that can be formed, DUMBASS.
> > > THIS digit sequence, the one formed by THIS process, IS NEW, dumbass!
> > > THIS sequence IS NOT ON the list!
> > > This sequence differs from EVERY sequence ON the list AT A FINITE
> > > position
> > > (it's just a DIFFERENT, LATER finite position for every DIFFERENT,
> > > LATER sequence on the list).
>
> > > > You're all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they're all
> > > > computed up to infinite length?
>
> > > They're NOT ALL computed to infinte length, DUMBASS!
> > > The ones ON THE LIST are computed to infinite length, but the
> > > far greater number of them NOT on the list are NOT computed AT ALL!
> > > Even though EVERY FINITE sublist of them is computed.
> > > EVERY FINITE ANYthing is computed!
> > > Computer programs can be ANY FINITE length! There is no upper limit!
>
> > > > Or as George Greene puts it, they're all computed up to ALL (infinite) FINITE lengths.
>
> > > Right.
>
> > > > And as George Greene puts it there's a new digit sequence at some FINITE point.
>
> > > Oh, bullshit! I did NOT say THAT!
> > > The new sequence being computed IS NOT "new" at ANY "finite point";
> > > EVERY FINITE sequence has the property that a great many elements on
> > > the list
> > > begin with that sequence!
>
> > This thread a repetition. It's been established 100 times already on
> > sci.math that Cantor was utterly wrong if not stupid. Fun grade: 3/10.
> > Too long and repetitive.
>
> "established"? considering Cantor was correct I find that hard to
> believe.
Hey guys, you are not taking me seriously, are you? You are scaring
me! I was just being ironic, you know...
|
|
