Here is an example of diagonalization
123
456
789
Diag = 159
AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST!
YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS!
DON’T YOU!!!
Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if there’s
no new digit sequence that can be formed.
You’re all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they’re all
computed up to infinite length?
Or as George Greene puts it, they’re all computed up to ALL (infinite) FINITE lengths.
And as George Greene puts it there’s a new digit sequence at some FINITE point.
Well I can’t see it.
Herc
—
the nonexistence of a box that contains the numbers of all the boxes
that don’t contain their own box number implies higher infinities.
– Cantor’s Proof (the holy grail of paradise in mathematics)
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:27:29 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Here is an example of diagonalization
More meaningless drivel.
On 8/06/2010 12:27 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Here is an example of diagonalization
> 123
> 456
> 789
> Diag = 159
> AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST!
> YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS!
> DON’T YOU!!!
> Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if
> there’s
> no new digit sequence that can be formed.
> You’re all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they’re all
> computed up to infinite length?
> Or as George Greene puts it, they’re all computed up to ALL (infinite)
> FINITE lengths.
> And as George Greene puts it there’s a new digit sequence at some FINITE
> point.
> Well I can’t see it.
> Herc
As usual, it’s far from clear what you’re on about.
However, the computable reals are countable, so one could hardly expect
a diagonalisation argument to show that they’re not, if that’s where
you’re coming from.
Sylvia.
"William Hughes" <wpihug…@hotmail.com> wrote
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Jun 7, 11:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Here is an example of diagonalization
>> 123
>> 456
>> 789
>> Diag = 159
>> AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST!
>> YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS!
>> DON’T YOU!!!
>> Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if there’s
>> no new digit sequence that can be formed.
>> You’re all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they’re all
>> computed up to infinite length?
> You can’t. So you have a contradiction. The assumption
> that there is a list of all real numbers is wrong.
> - William Hughes
You can’t find a new sequence using diagonalization?
Herc
"Sylvia Else" <syl…@not.here.invalid> wrote …
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On 8/06/2010 12:27 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> Here is an example of diagonalization
>> 123
>> 456
>> 789
>> Diag = 159
>> AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST!
>> YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS!
>> DON’T YOU!!!
>> Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if
>> there’s
>> no new digit sequence that can be formed.
>> You’re all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they’re all
>> computed up to infinite length?
>> Or as George Greene puts it, they’re all computed up to ALL (infinite)
>> FINITE lengths.
>> And as George Greene puts it there’s a new digit sequence at some FINITE
>> point.
>> Well I can’t see it.
>> Herc
> As usual, it’s far from clear what you’re on about.
> However, the computable reals are countable, so one could hardly expect
> a diagonalisation argument to show that they’re not, if that’s where
> you’re coming from.
> Sylvia.
I think you brainfarted dear.
Herc
"William Hughes" <wpihug…@hotmail.com> wrote
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Jun 7, 11:41 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "William Hughes" <wpihug…@hotmail.com> wrote
>> > On Jun 7, 11:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Here is an example of diagonalization
>> >> 123
>> >> 456
>> >> 789
>> >> Diag = 159
>> >> AntiDiag = 260 <<<<<<<NEW SEQUENCE NOT ON THE LIST!
>> >> YOU ALL THINK THIS WORKS ON THE LIST OF COMPUTABLE REALS!
>> >> DON’T YOU!!!
>> >> Gee it works for 159, must work in the infinite case too, who cares if there’s
>> >> no new digit sequence that can be formed.
>> >> You’re all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they’re all
>> >> computed up to infinite length?
>> > You can’t. So you have a contradiction. The assumption
>> > that there is a list of all real numbers is wrong.
>> > - William Hughes
>> You can’t find a new sequence using diagonalization?
> Not if you start with a list that does not exist.
> - William Hughes
I can compute the list of all computable reals. There’s just some numbers that show
up blank.
It’s trivial to compute a list that covers every digit sequence to all (infinite) finite lengths.
Herc
"the man from havana" <thehouseoftro…@gmail.com> wrote …
> On Jun 8, 12:27 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Here is an example of diagonalization
>> 123
>> 456
> give it a rest you junky !
no prob, last thread
Herc
On 2010-06-08, |-|ercules <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You’re all DIM! How can you form a new digit sequence when they’re all
> computed up to infinite length?
You’re begging the question.
> Well I can’t see it.
I’m not surprised.
- Tim
On 2010-06-08, |-|ercules <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I can compute the list of all computable reals.
No, you can’t.
> It’s trivial to compute a list that covers every digit sequence to
> all (infinite) finite lengths.
Delete "(infinite)", and your statement is correct. There is no such
thing as an infinite finite length though, so inserting the word
"infinite" there makes no sense.
- Tim
"Tim Little" <t…@little-possums.net> wrote
> On 2010-06-08, |-|ercules <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I can compute the list of all computable reals.
> No, you can’t.
>> It’s trivial to compute a list that covers every digit sequence to
>> all (infinite) finite lengths.
> Delete "(infinite)", and your statement is correct. There is no such
> thing as an infinite finite length though, so inserting the word
> "infinite" there makes no sense.
How about, all possible digit sequences are computable to all, as in an infinite
amount of, finite lengths.
Herc
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"Marshall" <marshall.spi…@gmail.com> wrote in message news:753b820e-d8b1-4ecd-b448-283171e2ee02@a39g2000prb.googlegroups.com…
> On Jun 7, 7:51 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I can compute the list of all computable reals. There’s just some numbers that show
>> up blank.
>> It’s trivial to compute a list that covers every digit sequence to all (infinite) finite lengths.
> How are you going to do that?
> Write a program that first prints out an infinite sequence of zeroes,
> and then…
> Oops! Already a problem! There is no "then" that comes after writing
> the
> zeroes, because the process of writing the zeroes will never finish.
> Please show us this trivial program that computes every infinite digit
> sequence.
> Marshall
Here you go:
1 000000
2 31415
3 2818
4 141
5 22
6 7
It’s not finished yet! Next digit is the 7th 0 on the first number.
Herc
"|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:875s9fF67sU1@mid.individual.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Tim Little" <t…@little-possums.net> wrote
>> On 2010-06-08, |-|ercules <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I can compute the list of all computable reals.
>> No, you can’t.
>>> It’s trivial to compute a list that covers every digit sequence to
>>> all (infinite) finite lengths.
>> Delete "(infinite)", and your statement is correct. There is no such
>> thing as an infinite finite length though, so inserting the word
>> "infinite" there makes no sense.
> How about, all possible digit sequences are computable to all, as in an
> infinite
> amount of, finite lengths.
You can’t use delusional paranoia to solve a mathematical problem.
HR
"HeadRush" <(_!_)@( . )( . ).com> wrote …
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:875s9fF67sU1@mid.individual.net…
>> "Tim Little" <t…@little-possums.net> wrote
>>> On 2010-06-08, |-|ercules <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I can compute the list of all computable reals.
>>> No, you can’t.
>>>> It’s trivial to compute a list that covers every digit sequence to
>>>> all (infinite) finite lengths.
>>> Delete "(infinite)", and your statement is correct. There is no such
>>> thing as an infinite finite length though, so inserting the word
>>> "infinite" there makes no sense.
>> How about, all possible digit sequences are computable to all, as in an
>> infinite
>> amount of, finite lengths.
> You can’t use delusional paranoia to solve a mathematical problem.
> HR
What are you saying, The Truman Show is FALSE?
Herc
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:31:23 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>What are you saying, The Truman Show is FALSE?
Er, yes, it has been all along – only your delusions are "real"…..
"Dingo" <di…@gmail.com> wrote …
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:31:23 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>What are you saying, The Truman Show is FALSE?
> Er, yes, it has been all along – only your delusions are "real"…..
Now you get it!
Herc
"|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:875vjnFm6nU1@mid.individual.net…
> "Dingo" <di…@gmail.com> wrote …
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:31:23 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>What are you saying, The Truman Show is FALSE?
>> Er, yes, it has been all along – only your delusions are "real"…..
> Now you get it!
> Herc
Now FUCK OFF!!!
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:38:39 +1000, "HeadRush" <(_!_)@( . )( .
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
).com> wrote:
>"|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:875vjnFm6nU1@mid.individual.net…
>> "Dingo" <di…@gmail.com> wrote …
>>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 14:31:23 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray…@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>What are you saying, The Truman Show is FALSE?
>>> Er, yes, it has been all along – only your delusions are "real"…..
>> Now you get it!
>> Herc
>Now FUCK OFF!!!
I second that motion…..everyone in favour say "aye"…..motion
carried unanimously…..