adamk
Posts:
1,492
Registered:
8/15/09
|
|
Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted:
Oct 30, 2012 1:42 PM
|
|
> "Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> > wrote in message > news:k6nqvf$lc9$1@news.albasani.net... > > LudovicoVan wrote: > >> "Peter Webb" > <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in > message > >> news:k6nk8v$lht$1@news.albasani.net... > >> > LudovicoVan wrote: > <snip> > > >> > > But you have just asked what "w" and "m" are > supposed to mean, > >> > > remember? That's why I call you (and co., > don't take it > >> > > personally as it isn't) parrots etc.: because > you are just right, > >> > > whatever kind of bollocks you might say, in > the end you are still > >> > > right. By dogma, and the guns. > >> > > >> > You actually have to identify what I said which > you think is > >> > "bollocks". > >> > > >> > Somehow you forgot to say what it is. > >> > >> I have just said it... Unless you mean a full > list of all the > >> bollocks ever stated in sci.math: of course, just > forget it. > > > > No, I want to know what I said which you think is > "bollocks". > > > > Why won't you tell us? > > I won't say it again: shut your mouth up and learn to > read and think. If > you like.
Yes, and the _others_ are the dogmatic ones, right? > > >> But you are correct in that I was > >> imprecise: all infinite sets are > *extended-countable*, i.e. all > >> infinite sets biject with N*, the extended > naturals. > > > > The "extended Naturals, huh"? Do you mean the > naturals extended with > > transfinite elements represented with "non-standard > numbers", as for > > example in > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_ari > thmetic ? > > > > If so, your comment is meaningless > > The meaninglessness is all yours, as usual. N* := N > u {oo}, and succ(oo) := > oo, but I have posted links up-thread already: not to > mention that you are a > regular around here, which is why you are still > either a liar or cannot > read, or both. > > > In fact, you really need to find something I have > said which you > > consider false. Only then can I explain it to you. > > Not false: bollocks, which here translates as not > even wrong. Anyway, what > is it that you'd like to explain? Please go on, I'm > all ears!
Right. No space left for a brain. > > -LV > >
|
|