Virgil
Posts:
4,479
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: The Diagonal Argument
Posted:
Dec 28, 2012 8:26 PM
|
|
In article
<1cc84dc7-69a0-4280-83b5-dec4416d963d@p7g2000pbz.googlegroups.com>,
Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 7:18 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <4bf7b763-8100-46af-be9d-90187b0f8...@s10g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Then you agree
> >
> > > 0. T(1,2) T(2,1) T(3,3) T(4,4) T(5,5) T(6,6) ...
> >
> > > is potentially ON THE LIST L!
> >
> > But, if T(n,n) is as I previously defined it,
> > 0. T(1,1) T(2,2) T(3,3) T(4,4) T(5,5) T(6,6) ...
> > is not even potentially on it.
> >
>
> HERE IS L
>
> L(x,y)
> +---------------->
> | 0. 2 3 4 5 6 7 ..
> | 0. 9 8 7 6 5 5 ..
> | 0. 1 2 3 1 2 3 ..
> | 0. 9 8 9 8 9 8 ..
> | 0. 6 5 6 5 6 5 ..
> | 0. 5 6 5 6 5 6 ..
> |
> v
>
> HERE IS T
>
> T(x,y)
> +---------------->
> | 0. 6 6 6 6 5 5 ..
> | 0. 5 5 5 5 6 6 ..
> | 0. 6 6 6 6 6 6 ..
> | 0. 5 5 5 5 5 5 ..
> | 0. 5 6 5 6 5 6 ..
> | 0. 6 5 6 5 6 5 ..
> |
> v
That is not my "T".
My "T(x,y)" gives a single row:
0. 6 5 6 5 5 5 ... ..
--
|
|
