Date: Dec 29, 2012 6:22 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Simple Refutation of Cantor's Proof

In article
Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

AN integral, but not THE integral.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> 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

--