Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 01/10/05
- Next message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Definition of"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Arkhimedes theorem and cardianlity"
- In reply to: mueckenh_at_rz.fh-augsburg.de: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:13:00 -0500
In <1105366233.590206.159560@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, on
01/10/2005
at 06:10 AM, mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de said:
>What is "possible existence"? Can anybody read them or not? Of
>course, many different numbers do possibly exist. But simultaneous
>use can be made of less than 2^10^100 only. And no string with more
>than 2^10^100 digits can ever be set up, in a mind, in a computer or
>elsewhere.
Does the center of the Earth exist? I'm not aware of any way that you
can observe it, even in principle.
>But it cannot be excluded, that you books meanwhile are elsewhere or
>nowhere.
It cannot be excluded that the entire Universe is an hallucination,
and therefor no argument based on the observed behavior of the
Universe has a logical basis.
>The diamond's existence has material roots.
How do you know? You can't observe it.
>A number has nothing to prove existence,
You have nothing to prove existence; you could be an hallucination, or
the articles that I am reading could be written from somebody else.
>Include brackets, curly brackets (perhaps the book is on set theory,
>numbers, and you will need more than 35.
The question is not whether there are more than 35 symbols, but rather
how many strings of a give length are texts; natural languages have
grammars that exclude some strings, as does the nomenclature of
Mathematics.
Of course, you could also claim that texts don't exist.
-- 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: Definition of"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: Arkhimedes theorem and cardianlity"
- In reply to: mueckenh_at_rz.fh-augsburg.de: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Virgil: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|