
Re: R > oo
Posted:
Mar 2, 2013 4:35 PM


On Mar 2, 12:30 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 7:28 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Friday, March 1, 2013 9:39:31 PM UTC+1, Graham Cooper wrote: > > > A LIST oo ROWS LONG! > > > > 0.00... > > > > 0.00... > > > This post is incoherent dribble. > > I showed a partial infinite list of reals. > > 0.00.. > 0;00.. > .. > > Do you have an ANTIDIAGONAL function to support your claims it is > incomplete? > > What is your antidiagonal function? > > Herc
How would you establish that the expansions you begin to detail would map on to any segment of R?
Well, that gets into whether the function, that makes a list these expansions, has as a range, an interval of reals.
So, look at the equivalency function, as I call it, it's quite well defined, it goes to one, and in binary there's only one antidiagonal, and it's one.
I'll agree that a more carefully defined function, that would have as each initial segment of each initial segment, of a matrix of values of the expansions, zeroes, with the only antidiagonal in binary being ones, with real value one, may go from zero, to one.
And: only one does.
Then, for a conscientious mathematician, formalist yearround, that's compelling.
There are lots who would work in foundations, but transfinite cardinals aren't used in real analysis, or continuum analysis for applications and physics. And, physics needs new methods to explain results of experiment. And, results in the digital are available via asymptotics. Good day.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson

