Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: This Is *PROOF* that AD never produces a New Digit Sequence!
Replies: 12   Last Post: Jan 2, 2013 11:38 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
INFINITY POWER

Posts: 117
Registered: 11/1/11
Re: This Is a Failed *PROOF* that AD never produces a New Digit Sequence!
Posted: Jan 1, 2013 3:56 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Jan 1, 6:42 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 30 Dez. 2012, 23:31, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>

> > YOU CAN'T PROVE IT. We by contrast HAVE EASILY
> > proved that since for EVERY n, the nth position of the diagonal
> > DIFFERS from the nth R on the list AT Rn's nth position,
> > THE ANTI-DIAGONAL *IS*NOT*ON* the list. If it WERE on, it would
> > have to be on it *AT* some row n. But the anti-diagonal IS NOT
> > on the list at row n because Rn DIFFERS from the anti-diagonal IN
> > POSITION n.

>
> But if you use a list of all finite sequences s(n) (of every finite
> length n) then there is always a finite sequence s(n) that is
> identical to the initial sequence d(n) of the diagonal. And as the
> diagonal can only be investigated up to any finite sequence, comparing
> s(n) with d(n), it is clear that Cantor's argument shows only one side
> of the medal, namely there is no sequence s(n) that is identical to
> d(n) for every n. The other side is that, by construction of the list,
> there is for every n and every d(n) an s(n) = d(n) in the list.



Right! This is VERY TRIVIAL PROOF and points [3] and [4] are TRIVIALLY
CORRECT!

segment = finite sequence of digits

[3] every segment of every finite size can be listed.

[4] every SEQUENCE of segments can be listed

by induction, a SEQUENCE of SEQUENCE OF DIGITS
is a SEQUENCE of DIGITS!


Notice George just goes off on Tangents about definitions and ignores the
topic.


GEORGE WHY DONT YOU PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS

AND ACTUALLY CALCULATE AN ANTI-DIAGONAL FOR ONCE

SO YOU CAN SEE HOW STUPID THEY (YOU) ARE!


******CHALLENGE TO LECTURER GEORGE GREENE*******

LIST
R1= 0.314159265358979323 ...
R2= 0.2718281828459045235360 ...
R3= 0.333333333333333333 ...
R4= 0.888888888888888888888888 ...
R5= 0.0123456789012345678901234 ...
R6= 0.14142135623730950488 ...
....

LIST
R1= < <314><15><926><535><8979><323> ... >
R2= < <27><18281828><459045><235360> ... >
R3= < <333><333><333><333><333><333> ... >
R4= < <888888888888888888888><8><88> ... >
R5= < <0123456789><0123456789><01234 ... >
R6= < <1><414><21356><2373095><0488> ... >
....

What is missing? <in segment notation>




*****************************

George I've 10 times the ESSAYS ARE INFINITE

You said IN THIS THREAD I didn't DEFINE THE TERMS

SO I DID AGAIN! And you ignored it!

STACK OF ESSAYS
_
_
_
_
_
_
_


WRITTEN ON LOBACHAVESKIAN PAPER!

<SENTENCE 1> <SENTENCE 2> <SENTENCE 3> .....

CHANGE ALL THE WORDS YOU WANT!

YOU CANNOT COME UP WITH ONE SINGLE NEW SENTENCE!











Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.