Re: EUREKA Cantor exposed.... sci.math curls tails between legs..

From: |-|erc (h_at_r.c)
Date: 12/11/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 08:58:53 +1000

We're going to have to go through this about 200 more times.
George is the only one who follows what I'm saying.

I'm trying to formalise your Cantorian argument as this:
>>They match to UNLIMITED PRECISION. the sequence is on the list to infinite flips.
>
>IT * DOES * contradict your conclusions of LET (i,n)=!(n,n), contradiction, therefore new sequence
>therefore higher infinities than infinite lists exist

<pause>

The reason you are all religious about cantors proof is this:
you have a logical construction of the real (dn) = !(n,n)
you have a 'concrete' argument of its non existence (i,n) != (n,n)

What you don't see is that they are mirror images of the logic of one another ***
What ACTUALLY HAPPENS, is that n->oo and your contradiction dissapears.
n does approach infinity in your construction

"george" <greeneg@cs.unc.edu> wrote in
> > |-|erc says...
> >
> > >NOT (Ea e N, Ab e N, L(a, b) != L(b, b))

> More readably, you have said
> ~(EaAb[Lab!=Lbb])
>
> It is OF COURSE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS

Right! This is an algebraic truth about diagonals. The interpretation is
"no real on the list is completely different to the diagonal... at every digit"

THIS IS TRIVIAL, but its an important axiom about dealing with multiple variables.

You have all stumbled across it as
"a real exists that is completely different to the diagonal"

Er e R, Aa e N, Eb e N, L(a, b) =/= r(b)
DMC's claim

<pause>

> > >=>
> > >Aa e N, Eb e N, L(a, b) = L(b, b)
> or,
> again, more legibly,
> AaEb[Lab=Lbb]
> and again, it is
> BLATANTLY OBVIOUSLY true that Eb,

Right, but it doesn't suggest DMC's claim. DMC's claim is just naivety of the AXIOM.

>Aa e N, Eb e N, L(a, b) = L(b, b) FACT

> DMC>
> > That doesn't follow at all. As a matter of fact, you've already
> > proved the *opposite*, namely that there is a real r such that
> >
> > Aa e N, Eb e N, L(a, b) != r(b) FICTION
>
> But, again, as Jesse pointed out, this is NOT the
> opposite of that, because THIS talks about r, whereas
> that doesn't.
>

Anyway believe what you want, because Cardinality won't be getting taught much longer
and you just miss out on cyberspace construction next decade.

I'm literally going to have to publish this puzzle in the newspaper, so
everyone can work out for themselves if it would work, and show
how thick you must be to believe this solution. read it, actually examine
this solution, its blatently does not work. All possible sequences of
heads and tails have been flipped to inifinite length FACT.

>Take one of the people, whatever his 1st flip was, reverse it! If he
>flipped a head you select tail, if he flipped a tail, heads. That's
>your first outcome, cross him off and select someone else, whatever was
>their second flip, reverse it! Keep on going and you have an infinite
>sequence that is different to everyone's sequence in atleast one flip.

Herc

Relevant Pages