Date: Dec 29, 2012 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: CHANGING THE DIAGONAL!
Graham Cooper <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:37 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <adde38fa-1e63-43a1-94f0-908da37a4...@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 -
> > > 
> > > you change each digit ONE AT A TIME
> > > 0.694...
> > > but this process NEVER STOPS
> > > 
> > > 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 anti-diagonal digits creates the
> > entire anti-diagonal 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 ANTI-DIAGONALISE an infinite set.
> Every digit you change is substitutable by another digit in another
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.