Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 11/14/04
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Hibernatus: "Re: Why are reals uncountable yet algorithms countable (long)?"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Lee Rudolph: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Reply: Lee Rudolph: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 21:57:10 +0100
curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) writes:
> The issue at the heart of it is that we define a lot of things in
> math with algorithms. And if you specify an algorithm that runs
> forever, and never halts, then it's not valid to talk about what
> happens after it halts. It's the same mistake in logic one would
> make if they claimed that time and space was infinite in this
> universe, and then talked about what happens after a spaceship sent
> out from earth, reached the edge of the universe.
Yeah, what a logic error that would be. Clearly logic dictates that
infinite things have no edges.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"To [mathematicians] amateur mathematicians are worse than scum, and
scarier than nuclear bombs."
-- James S. Harris on mathematicians' phobias
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Hibernatus: "Re: Why are reals uncountable yet algorithms countable (long)?"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Lee Rudolph: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Reply: Lee Rudolph: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
