Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion

From: Rob Duncan (robduncan_at_gbronline.com)
Date: 12/08/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 19:36:54 -0800

"HERC777" <herc777@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102465542.540591.110530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> because he doesn't have a legitimate sequence, its only a
> N.U.I.S.A.N.C.E.
>
> The sequence he forms has no unique initial segment, even to infinite
> flips.
>
> Assumption: all sequences are present, all combinations of H&T to
> infinite length. TRUE
>
> Definition: define a number (sequence) that is not in the set of
> numbers BAD DEFINITION
>
> Reasoning: if its a number then its not a number, if its not a number
> then its a number.
>
> snap out of it! its a hoax!
>
> put your money on making a new sequence out of an infinite set of
> attempts and you lose, laws of physics.
>
> This is no different to you insisting without showing reason this
> formula is INVALID
>
> proof(X) <-> X
>
> iff X has a proof then X is true
>
> because it disagrees with this formula
>
> G = ~proof(G)
>
> You'd rather, out of communal preference accept
> "YOU CANT PROVE ME" as a hailed stopping point in theory,
> rather than squash it with a high level consistency axiom,
> X <-> proof(X)
>
> Herc

Oh for heavens sake. You introduce chronology into the equation (infinity)
and then go on to ignore it. If youre flipping forever then of course you
will ALWAYS have some unique patterns of flips, until someone repeats them,
but because the flips never end there will always be new unique patterns of
coin flips, and then copies, then unique patterns, then copies, ad
infinitum.

Its never ending.

The discussion is a waste of your time Herc. Time to obsess on something
else.

Rob

Relevant Pages