
Re: Simple Refutation of Cantor's Proof
Posted:
Dec 29, 2012 5:13 PM


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 antidiagonal. > If we are doing decimal digits, then AD(n) = 9L(n,n). > FOR ALL n. *THE END*.
The End of any Credibility you had left Greene.
WHAT'S THE DERIVATIVE of AD(n) = 9L(n,n) ?
Applied to the list UTM(index,digitpos) MOD 10 ?
Ignoring your error of incompetence re: 0.49999.. <=> 0.50000..
Herc

