Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
CHANGING THE DIAGONAL!
Replies:
6
Last Post:
Dec 29, 2012 4:14 AM



Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: CHANGING THE DIAGONAL!
Posted:
Dec 29, 2012 2:27 AM


In article <09a99f1623d94b0196a86a277814f937@oi3g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 3:18 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <9533c4f1686c45be8ef8f7f4d3a9e...@ui9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 11:37 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <adde38fa1e6343a194f0908da37a4...@s6g2000pby.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > +> > > > > >  0. 542.. > > > > >  0. 983.. > > > > >  0. 143.. > > > > >  0. 543.. > > > > >  ... > > > > > v > > > > > OK  THINK  don't back explain to me. > > > > > You run down the Diagonal 5 8 3 ... > > > > > IN YOUR MIND  > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > you change each digit ONE AT A TIME > > > > > 0.694... > > > > > but this process NEVER STOPS > > > > > > > [2] > > > > > so you NEVER CONSTRUCT A NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE! > > > > > > That is like saying that the function f+ N > N : x \_> x^2 > > > > never ends. > > > > > Right! but since it has no free variable input to apply it's safe to > > > extrapolate results toward infinity. > > > > > > As soon as one has a completed rule by which values of the function are > > > > determined from its domain to its codomain, the function is defined. > > > > > > E.g., f:N > N : 2 > 2*x+1 > > > > is completed function > > > > > > Thus a rule or function for determining antidiagonal digits creates the > > > > entire antidiagonal list of digits in one step. > > > > > dependent on the input. > > > > As a function of the input certainly, but one theat function is defined > > the process is essentially completed. > > > > > > > > > In this case, you cannot ANTIDIAGONALISE an infinite set. > > > > > Every digit you change is substitutable by another digit in another > > > permutation. > > > > I have defined a function which does it automatically for any and every > > list of endless sequences of decimal digits, giving a resulting sequence > > not listed in that list. > > > > It has a parameter that only works given LIST format. > > It doesn't prove a SET of reals is incomplete.
The set of all reals is not complete, but it also cannot be listed. > > Here is the SET of all reals. > > UTM( real , digit ) [mod 10] > > > that is a complete specification of the set. > > However, there are infinitely many permutations, due to there being > infinitely many universal turing machines in infinitely many different > languages. > > Since your process has a free variable, the never ending cross > sequence you compute is dependent on your own selected free variable, > the permutation you must select for listable format for your process > to work. > > IF you got out of your corner and examined the other methods put forth > you would see this. > > IS 0. T(2,1) T(1,2) T(3,3) T(4,4) ... > > absent from L? > > T is the list of all reals with the digit changing function applied to > all digits of every real.
You are assuming that there can be a list of all real as a step in trying to prove that there can be such a list. Such argiuments, being circular, are invalid. > > If you cannot address the posts in the group you should stop yourself > from arguing against them.
I am well able to spot you flaws. 



