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
>
>
|
|
