Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 11/25/04
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:10:56 -0500
In <20041121224827.824$zg@newsreader.com>, on 11/22/2004
at 03:48 AM, curt@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) said:
>It talks about the behavior of infinite procedures
You keep making that claim; it's false.
>and it always takes time.
What is "time"? If you look closely at it you will find that the only
way to give a usable answer is to employ Mathematics.
>What is useful to me, is to understand how to clearly paint this
>yellow foul line on various parts of mathematics.
No. First you have to establish that your universe is correct and the
best description. If, as seems clear, it is not, then there is no foul
line to draw.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- In reply to: Curt Welch: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
