Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********

From: george (greeneg_at_cs.unc.edu)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: 20 Jan 2005 20:01:37 -0800

|-|erc wrote:
> Take any reasonable interpretration of the terms

No. The whole point about logic is that
if you are dealing with something PROVABLE,
then IT NEVER MATTERS how you interpret the
terms. The provability of what you are saying
arises from the STRUCTURE of the argument and
it is valid for ALL interpretations. The interpretation
IS IRRELEVANT. It's the fact that your crap NEEDS
interpreting THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

> you can to get an answer where possible.

It is ALWAYS possible to get AN answer if you interpret
things in YOUR preferred way. That's why YOU always have
an answer. The problem with THAT strategy is that the
resulting answers are WRONG.

> If there is ambiguity, state all possible
> interpretations and answer each.

Make me. As if I didn't have better things to
do with MY time.

> "A random real number will be on a computables list to an infinite
number of digits" True / False / Other
> ____
Other; "random" and "on a list ... to an infinite number of
digits" are both simply meaningless. Reinterpreted reasonably,
what you MEANT as OPPOSED to "random" was "arbitrary", and what
you meant by "on...to...number of digits" is unsalvageable.
It is salvageable for finite numbers, but if you plug
w into the hole where the finite numbers is in THAT re-
interpretation, you just get that the "random" real must
occur on the list, and therefore must be computable, which
is, as I said at the outset, THE WRONG answer.

> "All finite subsequences of a random real number will be on a
computables list" True / False / Other
> ____
Other; again, "random" is relevant.
However, if you replace "a random" with "every",
you will then have something salvageable, if you
will expand "on a computables list" to something
meaningful. It has gone under-stressed throughout
this argument that what you call "a computables list"
is itSELF NONcomputable. The list you are talking about
is one that no TM can generate, even though every element
on it corresponds to some TM.

>
> "All digits of a random real number are covered in all finite
subsequences of that number" True / False / Other
> ____
Other; you can't define "covered".
You're also dangerously equivocating on "all".
In THIS room, "all" means EACH. The empty
subsequence is a finite subsequence of that number.
IT doesn't cover ANY digits of ANY real number.
So this would be obviously false if you had a COHERENT
definition of "all" and "covered". But you don't.
We could get you one, but why should we do your homework
for you? Hint: the proper typing of the function
you are trying to call "covering" is that it relates not
"all subsequences", but rather ANY OLD ARBITRARY COLLECTION
of sequences, to the ONE sequence representing 1 real.
It returns some subsequence of that real. By "all digits ...
are covered", you mean that the returned subsequence is equal
to the whole real argument.

> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on
it to an infinite number
> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
> ____
False.
The only way a number can be "on" a list of countably-infinite
digit-strings "to" infinite digits is for it to be on the
list. The truth we have instead is that it is (in your
language, which we DON'T endorse) on the list to EACH AND EVERY
FINITE number of digits. BUT NOT "to" any infinite numbers of
digits. This IS NOT analogous to the finite case.
If something is on the list "to" 5 digits then it is on it
to 0,1,2,3,4, AND 5 digits. This is 6 different numbers
of digits. But that does not entitle you to say that the
number is on the list to 6 digits. Similarly,there being
w natnums n with the property that the number is on the list
to n digits does NOT entitle you to say that the number is
on the list to w digits.

> How many digits of a random sequence

You really need to just delete the word "random"
from your vocabulary. It doesn't mean anything
here. Making your argument for EACH AND EVERY sequence
will AUTOMATICALLY include all the "random" sequences!
There is no reason to try to separate them out!

> have the prefix up to that digit
WHAT digit, DUMBASS?
PRONOUNS HAVE TO HAVE ANTECEDENTS.
LEARN TO FUCKING *SPEAK* *ENGLISH*, MORON.

> occur on a member of any complete computable number list?

You gotta be more careful there.
A list with all and only the computable reals on it,
once each, isn't practically generatable. You should
just talk about a denumerable list with the property that
every computable real occurs on it at least once. Lots
of other things can be on it as well but THAT DOESN'T HAVE
TO BOTHER YOU.

>
> Random Sequence =
>
<593738..........................................................................................>
> |<--- How many of these digits satisfy the question? --->|

WHAT question, moron? A DIGIT cannot satisfy the question.

>
> UTM(row, col) mod 10
> 1 <23424............>
> 2 <54434............>
> 3 <59373.............>
> ...

As I've told you before, infinitely many
of the points in that matrix are UNDEFINED
because UTM(row,col) DOES NOT HALT.
> ____
>
> * remember : how many digits (of the random sequeence), not how many
digits (fit on each row of UTM).

The fact that you have to try that lame clarification
just proves how stupidly you phrased it in the first
place. IF YOU WOULD GET IT RIGHT TO START WITH, you
would NOT have these problems.