|
|
Re: NOT 1 SHRED OF CANTOR'S THEOREM HAS BEEN FORMALLY PROVEN!
Posted:
Dec 26, 2011 11:02 AM
|
|
On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 12:03:07 -0800 (PST), Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 1:00 am, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@math.okstate.edu> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Graham Cooper
>>
>>
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 24, 10:58 pm, David C. Ullrich <ullr...@math.okstate.edu>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 00:51:51 +0200, Aatu Koskensilta
>>
>> >> <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote:
>> >> >"INFINITY POWER" <infin...@limited.com> writes:
>>
>> >> >> STUPID PEOPLE LIKE AATU SAY
>>
>> >> >> "WE CAN FORMALISE ANYTHING SIMPLY BY ADDING SOME MORE RIGOUR!"
>>
>> >> > I'm famous for my stupidity, but I don't think I've ever said that.
>>
>> >> I don't recall you ever saying that either. But I bet you wish you
>> >> had, eh? It's inspiring. We can formalize anything by adding more
>> >> rigour.
>>
>> >> Just yesterday I was eating this grilled-cheese sandwich.
>> >> I wanted to formalize it, didn't see how. All I had to do was
>> >> add more rigour! Duh. (Maybe next time I'll ask them to
>> >> slop a little rigour on before serving.)
>>
>> >CORRECT! According to AATU!
>>
>> >[AATU]
>> >we simply would regard an argument we don't see
>> >how to formalise as falling short of the standard of rigour
>>
>> For heaven's sake. That sounds like something he _could_ have
>> said. Taking your word for the fact that he actually did so:
>> You _really_ think that saying that is the same as saying
>> "WE CAN FORMALISE ANYTHING SIMPLY BY ADDING SOME MORE RIGOUR"?
>>
>> It's not. Not even close.
>
>
>You're a Pig IGNORANT LIAR ULRICH
Now that's a compelling argument. One can imagine
readers all over the worlld:
"Hmm, this Graham Cooper guy doesn't seem to be making
much sense... wait, what's that you say? Ullrich is a pig ignorant
liar? Fine then, GC must be right."
Having spent 30 years constructing logical arguments for a
living, I'll give you a little tip: "Pig IGNORANT FUCKING LIAR"
would be even more convinving.
>It's 1 word from being EXACTLY EQUIVALENT
>
>"WE CAN FORMALISE ANYTHING (FORMALISABLE) SIMPLY BY ADDING SOME MORE
>RIGOUR"?
Of course, pig ignorant liar or not, at least I have the ability to
think straight. Sorry, Graham, but no, "we simply would regard an
argument we don't see how to formalise as falling short of the
standard of rigour" and "WE CAN FORMALISE ANYTHING (FORMALISABLE)
SIMPLY BY ADDING SOME MORE RIGOUR" are not equovalent.
Not even close.
>
>
>
>>
>> >CONVERSELY: only the informal arguments that we are able to add more
>> >rigour to to fully formalise are actually proofs in the first place!
>>
>> >Herc
>
>
>CAN'T YOU READ YOU FUCKING TOOL?
>
>WHY DON'T YOU ANSWER ONE OF THE DOZEN DISPROOFS AND COUNTER EXAMPLES
>OF YOUR PIG IGNORANT LOLLY MOB OF SCI.MATH TROLLS ARE UNABLE TO?
>
>GIVEN AN INFINITE LIST OF REALS
>
>0101000..
>0001111..
>0001111..
>0000111..
>..
>
>A DIAGONAL IS JUST A SPECIAL CASE OF A RANDOM WALK TOUCHING EVERY
>COLUMN AND ROW ONCE.
>
>YOU LYING STUPID IDIOTS HAVEN'T ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN 6 MONTHS.
>
>YES OR NO YOU DUCK AND WEAVING CON ARTIST?
>
>WHAT A FUCKING OUTRIGHT LIAR ULRICH IS!
>
>HERC
|
|
