"Mike Terry" <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> wrote > Hello Herc, > > To sincerely try to answer your title question, there are a number of > factors involved: > > 1) What you write is sloppy (mathematically) and so it's not > clear what you intend to say with your individual statements. > > 2) Some of the things you *seem* to be saying, are clearly (to > everyone else) incorrect. Maybe this isn't what you meant > to say, but (1) is getting in the way. That's YOUR problem, > not everyone elses... > > 3) Although you say many things that could be interpreted as true, > (typically "trivially true"), it's not normally clear where > you are heading with your argument, and so people will assume an > end goal (e.g. "disproving Cantor's xxx result") and argue > with you that your results do not disprove that, even if > you have not yet mentioned Cantor! :-) I don't think this > is entirely your problem, except that (1) and (2) have reduced > your credibility so much that people are not able to discuss > things with you on the basis of what you actually > write! > Putting it another way, if what you actually write is literally > gibberish, people will naturally try and be helpful, and argue > about what they think you might be *trying* to say. If you > corrected faults (1) and (2), people would be more willing to > listen to exactly what you say... > > In theory, it should be possible for you to eliminate problem (1) by: > - thinking carefully about what you mean to say, > - listening to people objections to what you actually said, and > - rephrasing what you say in a precise way. > > Maybe after doing that (2) will go away because people actually understand > what you intend. (Or maybe you really are just wrong, but at least you'll > know exactly why people believe this!) > > From past experience, I don't think you are willing/able to do what it takes > to eliminate problem (1). > > Well, let's look at what you say below in this light... > > "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:87ocucFrn3U1@mid.individual.net... >> Consider the list of increasing lengths of finite prefixes of pi >> >> 3 >> 31 >> 314 >> 3141 >> .... >> >> Everyone agrees that: >> this list contains every digit of pi (1) > > Literally this just doesn't make sense. Perhaps you mean to say: > > this list contains every finite prefix of the infinite > digit sequence for pi (1)? > > I would agree with that... > > (What you actually said is gibberish because the list is not a list of > digits. If we try to treat it as such, then the only digit in the list is > 3). > >> >> as pi is an infinite digit sequence, this means >> >> this list contains every digit of an infinite digit sequence (2) > > Same again. Perhaps you mean to say: > > this list contains every finite prefix of an infinite > digit sequence (2)? > > I would agree with that, although it hardly says more than (1). > > [My suspicion at this point is that your gibberish wording is actually the > *key* in some way to how you want to introduce some incorrect conclusion, > but time will tell on that. If I'm right, you won't like my clarification, > because it will make it harder for you to express your mistake...] > >> >> similarly, as computable digit sequences contain increasing lengths of ALL > possible finite prefixes >> >> the list of computable reals contain every digit of ALL possible infinite > sequences (3) > > Same again :) This is harder to guess what you're trying to say though... > > There is no unique list of computable reals - however, people would agree > that the computable reals are countable, and so can certainly be enumerated. > Perhaps the actual list doesn't matter and we should just choose one? > > Then there is the gibberish use of "every digit of" again. Probably this is > the same mistake as above, and you mean to say "finite prefixes"! > > Also, now your talking about reals rather than digit sequences. These are > distinct objects, but there are obvious correspondences. > > So taking these comments into account, is this what you meant to say: > > Let CRL be a list of digit sequences covering all the > computable reals. > > Then CRL contains every finite prefix of every infinite > digit sequences (3) > > I would basically agree with that, if that's what you actually meant! > (Then I would wait for you to go further from this and conclude something > interesting, as so far there's nothing controversial...) > > There is still the minor issue with my (3), that CRL contains only infinite > digit sequences, and so does not literally contain any finite prefixes. But > we could easily get around that e.g. by appending 00000000... to each finite > prefix, and I do not think this issue will cause us any problem. > > Regards, > Mike. > >> >> OK does everyone get (1) (2) and (3). >> >> There's no need for bullying (George), it's just a maths theory. >> Address the statements and questions and add your own. >> >> Herc >> -- >> If you ever rob someone, even to get your own stuff back, don't use the > phrase >> "Nobody leave the room!" ~ OJ Simpson >
Thanks Mike, very thorough. Although your statements contradict several other sci.math posters.
Yes it's true I rely on people finding the simplest (in my mind) interpretation, people manage to communicate in English in other topics why not maths?
It's far simpler to use the shortest description and allow for ambiguity (other interpretations) If I give an explicit description then people will fault that some other way anyway, and the meaning is lost.
I think NO BOX CONTAINS THE BOX NUMBERS THAT DON'T CONTAIN THEIR OWN BOX NUMBERS
gives a clear *hint* of self reference at some level.
The actual single_interpretation_format of that sentence is not ambiguous, but tedious and less clear.
