Re: The Consise Cantor Disproof



HERC777 wrote:
> It doesn't matter I haven't specified
> a sample length, I haven't set
> the confidence level either!

It matters.

>
> There's average,

NO, dumbass, over an INFINITE sample space,
there IS NO average! THAT'S YOUR WHOLE PROBLEM!

> there's also the average distance between 1's should
> be about 2 digit places.

That doesn't meant that sequences where it is more or
less than that are ANY less TYPICAL than those where it IS
that, DUMBASS! If I'm rolling fair six-sided dice
then the average roll should be 3.5. If I'm rolling 2
of them then they should, usually, or at least more often
than any other number sum to 7 (1/6 of the time, which is
more than for any other number). But "7" is NOT a possible
OUTCOME of rolling 2 dice! It is an outcome of a STATISTIC,
of a SUM, of the ACTUAL outcome, which is going to be one
of (1,6)(2,5),(3,4),(4,3),(5,2), or (6,1).
EVERY LAST ONE of those outcomes has the SAME probability --
1/36 -- as what YOU (because you are stupid) are trying
to call the NON-typical outcomes that sum to things
like 2 or 12.

> It might be too discrete to test for a
> poisson distribution.
>
> Not all sequences are the same George, you moron.

YES, THEY ARE, in terms of the probability that they might
occur. All finite ones, anyway, if they're all generated
in the way you said. For infinite ones, probability as
you think you know it is not even definable.

>
> Since I might be using it..
>
> Define : MISL = maximum initial segment length
> the largest initial segment of a List that, if you changed any or all
> of the digits it would always match some other initial segment of that
> List.


That is incoherent as usual.
Most people use mathematical language for a reason.
You CANNOT "match" an initial segment of a list.
I think you meant something about permutations.

> Define : TRIL = a typical random infinite list,

*** you, you ignorant bitch. Just because you have
DECIDED to CALL Something "typical" does NOT mean that
it IS in the LEAST "typical". Defining "typical"
over infinite domains is impossible in any case.

> List where
> the yth digit of the xth real is List(x,y) and
> is set once

This is meaningless. A list is an abstraction.
It has the value it has. It NEVER MATTERS how it got set.
If you can't tell the difference between a constant and
a variable then you are never going to get anywhere.
The original question was about a CONSTANT list of all
the reals. Nobody cares whether it was randomly
generated. Once it's BEEN generated, all we care about
is whether there is a real that's not on it. Guess what:
there is.

> during an
> initial phase of the investigations to INT(RND*2).
> AND
> As a finite subset of the digits starting
> at the origin increases in x
> and y and approaches infinity,
> the MISL approaches infinity.

The MISL doesn't depend on increasing x or y,
as you defined it above, so your whole attempt at
definition here is just a pathetic failure.
Maybe if you had some AXIOMS and knew some LOGIC,
you might be able to say something.

.

Quantcast