Date: Dec 29, 2012 5:13 PM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: Simple Refutation of Cantor's Proof
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