
Re: Peerreviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted:
Oct 30, 2012 4:24 AM


Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Oct 30, 4:01 pm, "Peter Webb" > <webbfamilyDIEspam...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > Graham Cooper wrote: > > > On Oct 30, 1:51 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfamilyDIEspam...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > No. > > > > > > Do you claim to have a list of all Reals? > > > > > I have a listable set of all Reals. > > > > Great. Send it to me. I will tell you at least one missing Real. > > > > > Do you claim to be able to examine infinite lists? > > > > No, I claim to be able to examine rules which apply to infinite > > sequences. For example, I can tell you the sequence of Reals 1, 2, > > 3, ... where the Real in position n is n interpreted as a Real > > number ... does not contain 0.5, without explicitly examining > > every element in the list. > > > > > If so, specify the infinite stream protocol of your choice. > > > > > Herc > > > > Not needed. > > > > Just tell us which Real appears in position n for all n. > > > > > You want me to 'tell you' an infinite sequence? >
No, I want you to tell me what Real appears at position n on your list.
You do claim to have a list of all Reals, don't you?
> I told you which digit appears in position 1,2,3,4,5 & 6 > for reals in positions > > R11 R12 R13 R14 > R21 R22 R23 R24 > R31 R32 R33 R34 > R41 R42 R43 R44 > > Here are those digits again. > > 0.000000.. 0.110000.. 0.111010.. 0.111110.. ... > 0.000111.. 0.101000.. 0.000010.. 0.001100.. ... > 0.111000.. 0.010010.. 0.001010.. 0.101010.. ... > 0.111100.. 0.001011.. 0.000011.. 0.111111.. ... > ... > > Should you require any further digits then specify which ones from > this enumerable_set_of_reals. >
No, I want the Reals in your list.
You haven't even specified the first Real in your list. What is it? What is the second Real on your list? What is the nth Real on your list?
> Since you have FAILED 5 times now to provide any hint of a missing > real from this enumerable_set_of_reals I think your claim is clearly > debunked. >
You haven't specified the list yet.
You need to tell us what Real is in the first position, what Real is in the second position, and so on. Otherwise how do we know what Reals are already on your list?
> If you wish to REFINE YOUR CLAIM that given an Enumeration or > specification thereof you have something to prove then do so. > > Otherwise your claim to prove anything given any ENUMERABLE SET OF > REALS clearly appears to have failed on the set provided 5 times > already. > > Herc
I made no such claim. To start off with, its nonsense.
You claim to have a list of all Reals. Produce it.

