Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Topic: Matheology § 008
Replies: 15   Last Post: May 17, 2012 12:37 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Graham Cooper Posts: 4,061 Registered: 5/20/10
Re: Matheology § 008
Posted: May 16, 2012 4:27 PM

On May 16, 10:00 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 3:05 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> > On May 15, 11:00 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 5:50 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > So the initial flaw of mathematicians is to assume OTHER TRAVERSALS
> > > > than the identity diagonal are just OTHER VARIATIONS of their single
> > > > example, when the opposite is true - the identity diagonal is a
> > > > SPECIAL CASE of the infinitude of general paths allowing you to
> > > > construct any infinite sequence at all.

>
> > > Nope.  ***Almost*** any infinite sequence.   As you have noted,
> > > for ***any*** list there are infinite sequences that cannot be made
> > > (Remember, having the rows you need is not enough. you have to use
> > > every row).

>
> > You have a simpleton's ideology of what constitutes an infinite list.
>
> > Kindergarten children would laugh if you explained that
>
> > 0.1010
> > 0.0101
> > 0.1100
> > 0.0011

>
> > OK take 0011 from 0.X 0.-X 0.--X and 0.---X using up every row!
>
> There are 24 ways to produce a generalized diagonal from the above
> list.  No way produces 0011.

what's the point of being pedantic with you, you take quotes out of
context and commit libel with them then run away whistling that I
agreed with Cantor's Proof.

your Theory Of Reals is so twisted and embedded across all disciplines
of mathematics that it takes a scalpel to dissect your network of self-
supporting errors. arguing with cheats and liars, no matter how many
of you there are is a waste of 2 decades so far.

*****ME****

Given a particular enumeration L of a particular countable set S
an infinite string "exists" that does not equal any row
by the Weak_Unique Relation:

L = R1, R2, R3...
WU(r, L)
<=>
A(i): E(p): Ri_p =/= r_p

but the Strong_Unique Relation does not always hold:

SU(r, L)
<=>
E(p): A(i):
Ri_1=/=r_1 or Ri2=/=r_2 ... Ri_p =/= r_p

Using WU only, which is viable, given a particular L = R1, R2, R3...
L is missing_an_infinite_digit_string
and in a mathematical sense incomplete!

****YOU****
We are agreed there is no bijection between N and R.
So card(R) > card(N)

Followed by more lies by you that I support Cantor's Proof.

Why talk to idiots Will?

Herc

Date Subject Author
5/15/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
5/15/12 Graham Cooper
5/15/12 William Hughes
5/16/12 Graham Cooper
5/16/12 Graham Cooper
5/16/12 William Hughes
5/16/12 Graham Cooper
5/16/12 William Hughes
5/16/12 |-| E R C
5/16/12 William Hughes
5/16/12 |-| E R C
5/16/12 William Hughes
5/16/12 |-| E R C
5/16/12 William Hughes
5/17/12 Graham Cooper
5/16/12 |-| E R C