Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Matheology � 263
Replies: 57   Last Post: May 17, 2013 8:52 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 9,012
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 263
Posted: May 14, 2013 6:35 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<f5fcc9ab-019c-42ac-a18f-9fb28b41d07d@ul7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 15, 5:13 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5461da31-3edf-4357-a12b-02be4857d...@d8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>,
> >  Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> > > On May 14, 6:43 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <fe808d30-0f12-4c95-8708-3d6053afe...@oy9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > On May 14, 4:46 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <d6f681f1-613b-4e57-a336-5ab501a04...@wb17g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > ,
> > > > > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > > > On May 14, 1:36 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <d8620fe3-928d-4bc5-bf24-b16bee326...@wb17g2000pbc.googlegroups.
> > > > > > > > com>
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > > > > > On May 14, 11:09 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > <4f6cc18e-90b2-415e-83aa-963e1c083...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroup
> > > > > > > > > > s.co
> > > > > > > > > > m>,
> > > > > > > > > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > such as Virgil's favorite number!
> >
> > > > > > > > > > > 0.44444454444444444445444444545544444444445444444444444...
> >
> > > > > > > > > > That denotes, as yet, any of a range of real numbers, not
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > one, and whichever ones in that range Graham finds his
> > > > > > > > > > favorite,
> > > > > > > > > > none of
> > > > > > > > > > them are anything like my favorite.

> >
> > > > > > > > > Real numbers of that form are all you need to show
> >
> > > > > > > > I don't need to show any any such numbers.
> >
> > > > > > > > > | POINTS | > | INFINITE LIST |
> >
> > > > > > > > > between these 2 bars!
> >
> > > > > > > > > --->|----|<----
> >
> > > > > > > > > Here's another one
> >
> > > > > > > > > 0.4444444444445444444444454444445444444444454444445444444...
> >
> > > > > > > > > Remember your hero CANTOR showed you how to CONSTRUCT that
> > > > > > > > > number!

> >
> > > > > > > > > You post 20 times a day the Algorithm (sic) to construct that
> > > > > > > > > real!

> >
> > > > > > > > The algorithm I regularly post, and Cantor first used, is for
> > > > > > > > binary
> > > > > > > > sequences not decimals.

> >
> > > > > > > > Neither type of "antidiagonal" is defined without an infinite
> > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > sequences of the the appropriate type from which to build it,
> > > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > lists you have not provided, so no anti-diagonal need exist
> > > > > > > > until
> > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > do.

> >
> > > > > > > Such algorithms have been posted 100 times.
> >
> > > > > > > Though You have no clue what Cantor's Missing Set function
> > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > does.

> >
> > > > > > > SET1 = { 1 , 3 , 6 }
> > > > > > > SET2 = { 1 , 5 , 11 }
> > > > > > > SET3 = { 2 , 4 , 6, 8 , 10 , ... }
> > > > > > > SET4 = { 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8 }

> >
> > > > > > > [VIRGIL]
> >
> > > > > > > Given an arbitrary function f from |N to the powerset of |N (set
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > all subsets of |N), the set S = {n in |N | ~ n in f(n)} is a
> > > > > > > subset
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > |N not in the image of f, and thus is a proper "Cantor's missing
> > > > > > > set".

> >
> > > > > > > You learnt this magic formula off by heart and you have no idea
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > apply it!

> >
> > > > > > I have learnt the quadratic formula off by heart, too, though, at
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > can derive it from the quadratic equation, a*x^2 + b*x + c = 0, and
> > > > > > apply it.

> >
> > > > > > > and the Missing Set from the above enumeration is.... ?
> >
> > > > > > In order to be able to use the definition "S = {n in |N | ~ n in
> > > > > > f(n)}"
> > > > > > and thus determine which sets are missing in the image of a given
> > > > > > function, f: |N --> 2^|N, one must first be able to determine all
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > values of that function, i.e., one subset of |N for each member of
> > > > > > |N..

> >
> > > > > > If you only give me
> >
> > > > > > f(1) = { 1 , 3 , 6 }
> > > > > > f(2) = { 1 , 5 , 11 }
> > > > > > f(3) = { 2 , 4 , 6, 8 , 10 , ... }
> > > > > > f(4) = { 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8 }

> >
> > > > > > All I know so far is that that your f cannot be such a function
> > > > > > because 1 is in f(1) and 4 is in f(4).

> >
> > > > > <BZZZT!>
> >
> > > > > Wrong! Try again, what about 2? Is that in your missing set ?
> >
> > > > Depends on whether f(2) = { 1 , 5 , 11 } or not.
> >
> > > > If f(2) = { 1 , 5 , 11 } and f(3) = { 2 , 4 , 6, 8 , 10 , ... }
> > > > then 2 and 3 will be in that set, S, but that leaves all infinitely
> > > > many
> > > > n in |N with n > 4 still undetermined as to membership in S where
> > > > "S = {n in |N | ~ n in f(n)}"

> >
> > > So you can't calculate any members of C.M.S. given this then?
> >
> > >  SET1 = { 1 , 3 , 6 }
> > >  SET2 = { 1 , 5 , 11 }
> > >  SET3 = { 2 , 4 , 6, 8 , 10 , ... }
> > >  SET4 = { 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8 }

> >
>
>
> So the Above is a Sequence of ALL SUBSETS OF N


Are you claiming that |N has only 4 sug=bsets?

But you are wrong, since no mere SEQUENCE of sets can contain all
subsets of |N.

Any such sequence would, in effect, be a function, say f, from |N to
2^|N, the power set of |N, and any such function, f, will never have as
a value the set { n in |N : ~ n in f(n)}

Consider any f : {1} --> {{},{1}}
Consider any f : {1,2} --> {{},{1},{2},{1,2}}
Consider any f : {1,2,3} --> {{},{1},{2},{3},{1,2},{1,3},(2,3}.{1,2,3}}
...
None of those functions can be surjections, and they ever further from
surjection as the sizes of the domains increase, so why expect expect
any change in the limit?
--





Date Subject Author
5/10/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/13/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/13/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/15/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/15/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Scott Berg
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/16/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/17/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/17/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/17/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/17/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil
5/17/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology § 263
Graham Cooper
5/14/13
Read Re: Matheology � 263
Virgil

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.