
Re: This Is a Failed *PROOF* that AD never produces a New Digit Sequence!
Posted:
Jan 1, 2013 3:56 AM


On Jan 1, 6:42 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: > On 30 Dez. 2012, 23:31, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote: > > > YOU CAN'T PROVE IT. We by contrast HAVE EASILY > > proved that since for EVERY n, the nth position of the diagonal > > DIFFERS from the nth R on the list AT Rn's nth position, > > THE ANTIDIAGONAL *IS*NOT*ON* the list. If it WERE on, it would > > have to be on it *AT* some row n. But the antidiagonal IS NOT > > on the list at row n because Rn DIFFERS from the antidiagonal IN > > POSITION n. > > But if you use a list of all finite sequences s(n) (of every finite > length n) then there is always a finite sequence s(n) that is > identical to the initial sequence d(n) of the diagonal. And as the > diagonal can only be investigated up to any finite sequence, comparing > s(n) with d(n), it is clear that Cantor's argument shows only one side > of the medal, namely there is no sequence s(n) that is identical to > d(n) for every n. The other side is that, by construction of the list, > there is for every n and every d(n) an s(n) = d(n) in the list.
Right! This is VERY TRIVIAL PROOF and points [3] and [4] are TRIVIALLY CORRECT!
segment = finite sequence of digits
[3] every segment of every finite size can be listed.
[4] every SEQUENCE of segments can be listed
by induction, a SEQUENCE of SEQUENCE OF DIGITS is a SEQUENCE of DIGITS!
Notice George just goes off on Tangents about definitions and ignores the topic.
GEORGE WHY DONT YOU PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS
AND ACTUALLY CALCULATE AN ANTIDIAGONAL FOR ONCE
SO YOU CAN SEE HOW STUPID THEY (YOU) ARE!
******CHALLENGE TO LECTURER GEORGE GREENE*******
LIST R1= 0.314159265358979323 ... R2= 0.2718281828459045235360 ... R3= 0.333333333333333333 ... R4= 0.888888888888888888888888 ... R5= 0.0123456789012345678901234 ... R6= 0.14142135623730950488 ... ....
LIST R1= < <314><15><926><535><8979><323> ... > R2= < <27><18281828><459045><235360> ... > R3= < <333><333><333><333><333><333> ... > R4= < <888888888888888888888><8><88> ... > R5= < <0123456789><0123456789><01234 ... > R6= < <1><414><21356><2373095><0488> ... > ....
What is missing? <in segment notation>
*****************************
George I've 10 times the ESSAYS ARE INFINITE
You said IN THIS THREAD I didn't DEFINE THE TERMS
SO I DID AGAIN! And you ignored it!
STACK OF ESSAYS _ _ _ _ _ _ _
WRITTEN ON LOBACHAVESKIAN PAPER!
<SENTENCE 1> <SENTENCE 2> <SENTENCE 3> .....
CHANGE ALL THE WORDS YOU WANT!
YOU CANNOT COME UP WITH ONE SINGLE NEW SENTENCE!

