Re: No Unique Initial Segment And No Characteristic Expansion

From: george (greeneg_at_cs.unc.edu)
Date: 12/10/04 

Date: 9 Dec 2004 17:37:43 -0800

|-|erc wrote:

> I'm amazed grown men believe in this, DMC's diagonalizer is never
unique,
> not after 1 anti-flip, not after 10 anti-flips,

So FUCKING What??????
WHY do you even GIVE A *** whether anything is unique??
The number of POSSIBLE DIFFERENT OUTCOMES for what all these
random flippers are doing is NOT 1, dumbass. OBVIOUSLY,
for DIFFERENT possible [input]outcomes, THERE MUST BE different
possible results! That is an absolutely necessary property of
ANY process that has RANDOM inputs (and actually bothers to
depend on all of them).

We don't HAVE to have a diagonalizer, LET ALONE an anti-diagonalizer,
to do this. Let's just define an "initializer" as
flip-sequence-reader-writer
that visits each of Herc's Infinite flippers once and asks, NOT, "what
was your nth flip", but rather, "what was your first flip?", and
adds, as the mth flip of HIS sequence, NOT the denial of, but rather,
the exact SAME as, whatever the mth flipper's first flip was.

THIS SEQUENCE IS NOT UNIQUE *EITHER*, DIP***.
It will be DIFFERENT depending on which of the 2^m possible different
ways the original first m flippers' flips came out.

SO *FUCKING* what? Does this mean "take the first flip of
every flipper" is somehow an "invalid" way of defining an
infinite sequence??
OF FUCKING *COURSE* * N O T * !!

> not after googelplex anti-flips, he
> never has anything unique about his sequence at all, ever.

And that NEVER MATTERS,dip***.
Actually, if this is in binary, then he DOES have something unique
about his FINITE sequence: it is THE ONLY finite sequence with the
property that for ALL n, its nth flip disagrees with the nth
flipper's nth flip. THAT is unique and

> yet this is overlooked,

It is NOT overlooked, DIP***! WE SEE what you
are saying! And you are saying NOTHING! What you
are saying in NO way demonstrates any sort of illegitimacy
or ill-definedness of this sequence! If we are in binary
then it is uniquely defined AFTER the flippers have flipped
enough (given that every flipper is only a finite number of
flippers from the beginning, and every flip is only a finite
number of flips from the beginning, no individual flip or anti-
flip needs infinite inputs to compute).

> either this trivial diagonal, a line down the middle of a big square,
> is an illusion

Well, it obviously isn;t that.

> or its a bona fide witness to hyperinfinity

No, it obviously isn't that either.
It's just one more denumerable number. You could ADD it to the
list, at the beginning, and THEN what could they say?
THey could try again, but whatever they came up with, you could
just add that, too.

> and computers don't fully work,

NOTHING *fully* works, you ignorant jackass.
NO framework can generalize about ITSELF.
Suppose you you have some natural numbers (all positive)
written on a blackboard (a finite positive integer
number of finite positive integers). These numbers
have to have a sum. "The sum of the numbers on this blackboard"
is a well-defined concept. BUT YOU CAN'T *WRITE* IT *ON* that board.

> just ignore the fact negating the flip does not make a new outcome.

It makes an outcome different from THE ONE flipper's list that supplied
the flip being negated, DIP***. That's how we do it: ONE flipPER AT A
TIME.
That's just how THEY do it: one FLIP at a time.

> You knowingly base a hyperinfinity higher mathematics on this
solution?

This is not a "solution", dip***. It is just noticing that
Ax[rRx <-> ~xRx]
is a logical contradiction -- there CANNOT BE any such r.
This does not mean that r is not well-defined or that the method
by which you constructed it is wrong, though: it may instead be
that SOME OTHER PREMISE (i.e., "there is a list of all the reals")
in your argument was wrong. The specific means by which this
infinite list of flips was constructed ARE PROVABLY constructive,
simple, and legitimate. There is NOTHING special, specious, or suspect
about them. They are means that you have NO choice BUT to ALLOW and
that
you yourself, AND your precious finite computers, USE ALL THE TIME in
other contexts.

>
> >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.

Right.

> Literally unbelievable
> Herc

That just makes you literally stupid.

We give up.
Sorry if the fact that it took us so long
makes us look stupid too.

Loading