|
|
Re: The Diagonal Argument
Posted:
Dec 28, 2012 4:42 PM
|
|
On Dec 28, 7:18 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4bf7b763-8100-46af-be9d-90187b0f8...@s10g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then you agree
>
> > 0. T(1,2) T(2,1) T(3,3) T(4,4) T(5,5) T(6,6) ...
>
> > is potentially ON THE LIST L!
>
> But, if T(n,n) is as I previously defined it,
> 0. T(1,1) T(2,2) T(3,3) T(4,4) T(5,5) T(6,6) ...
> is not even potentially on it.
>
HERE IS L
L(x,y)
+---------------->
| 0. 2 3 4 5 6 7 ..
| 0. 9 8 7 6 5 5 ..
| 0. 1 2 3 1 2 3 ..
| 0. 9 8 9 8 9 8 ..
| 0. 6 5 6 5 6 5 ..
| 0. 5 6 5 6 5 6 ..
|
v
HERE IS T
T(x,y)
+---------------->
| 0. 6 6 6 6 5 5 ..
| 0. 5 5 5 5 6 6 ..
| 0. 6 6 6 6 6 6 ..
| 0. 5 5 5 5 5 5 ..
| 0. 5 6 5 6 5 6 ..
| 0. 6 5 6 5 6 5 ..
|
v
PATH A
T(x,y)
+---------------->
| 0. 6 X X X X X ..
| 0. X 5 X X X X..
| 0. X X 6 X X X ..
| 0. X X X 5 X X ..
| 0. X X X X 5 X ..
| 0. X X X X X 5 ..
|
v
PATH B
T(x,y)
+---------------->
| 0. X 6 X X X X ..
| 0. 5 X X X X X..
| 0. X X 6 X X X ..
| 0. X X X 5 X X ..
| 0. X X X X 5 X ..
| 0. X X X X X 5 ..
|
v
YOU CLAIM PATH A
0.656555...
IS ABSENT.
YOU CLAIM ALL PERMUTATIONS OF L
THAT CONSTRUCTION METHOD WORKS
HENCE
YOU ALSO CLAIM PATH B IS ABSENT
0.566555...
Herc
|
|
