|
|
Re: Simple Refutation of Cantor's Proof
Posted:
Dec 29, 2012 5:13 PM
|
|
On Dec 25, 1:23 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 3:01 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You run down the Diagonal 5 8 3 ...
>
> > IN YOUR MIND - you change each digit ONE AT A TIME
>
> NO, DUMBASS, YOU DON'T do that.
> You WRITE A DEFINITION of A NEW OBJECT that has a property with
> respect
> TO EVERY row & column OF THE EXISTING list, ALL AT THE SAME time.
>
>
>
> > 0.694...
>
> > but this process NEVER STOPS
>
> That DOESN'T MATTER, DUMBASS.
>
>
>
> > and you NEVER CONSTRUCT A NEW DIGIT SEQUENCE!
>
> NOTHING EVER *NEEDS* to be constructed, DUMBASS!
> YOU DON'T represent the function f(x)=2*x by
The derivative f'(x)=2
The integral f*(x)=x^2
--------------------------------
NOW f(x)=2*x IS A PROPERLY DEFINED FUNCTION
AND YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE TOWARDS INFINITY
> some INFINITE LIST of pairs of doubles that you have to store
> in a computer! You just store a short finite list OF INSTRUCTIONS
> that say "if your input is n, let your output be double it".
> THE END. IT DOES NOT MATTER that you can't call all infinity
> differnt arguments at once, or in any order. The DEFINITION OF THE
> FUNCTION IS STILL ALREADY COMPLETE,
> DUMBASS.
> DITTO
> the definition of the anti-diagonal.
> If we are doing decimal digits, then AD(n) = 9-L(n,n).
> FOR ALL n. *THE END*.
The End of any Credibility you had left Greene.
WHAT'S THE DERIVATIVE of AD(n) = 9-L(n,n) ?
Applied to the list UTM(index,digitpos) MOD 10 ?
Ignoring your error of incompetence re: 0.49999.. <=> 0.50000..
Herc
|
|
