Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Lee Rudolph (lrudolph_at_panix.com)
Date: 11/14/04
- Next message: Virgil: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Ross A. Finlayson: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Nov 2004 16:09:50 -0500
"Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@phiwumbda.org> writes:
>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.
Good thing Occam's Razor is Ultrafinite(TM)!
Lee Rudolph
- Next message: Virgil: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Virgil: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Ross A. Finlayson: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|