Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********
rupertmccallum_at_yahoo.com
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: |-|erc: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Previous message: Jannick Asmus: "Re: tighter bound on square-root inequality"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Jan 2005 20:24:25 -0800
|-|erc wrote:
> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > |-|erc wrote:
> > > <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is
> > whether
> > > > or not you understand it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > liar
> > >
> > > Herc
> >
> > What do you say I'm lying about? How about telling me whether you
> > understand what I'm saying or not. That might move the discussion
> > forward.
> >
>
> When you are corrected, you ignore it, retaliate, call it ridiculous,
change the topic,
> and try to skip over it.
In what sense did I change the topic? You mean I changed it from the
topic of how bad my grammar was? Is this what you're accusing me of
evading?
You weren't correcting me, you were just being abusive. If you think
you can point out a mistake in my grammar, go ahead. It's hardly
relevant though, is it?
> I don't want to move the discussion, quite the opposite, I
> want the fact oo digits of a sequence get computed in order stated
clearly and
> understood, its a very simple proposition that not 1 of 1,000
sci.maths subscribers
> will admit to, except John Savard.
>
Okay, what exactly is this fact that you want understood? Are you
saying every sequence is computable? Why do you expect people to agree
with this? What arguments do you have to offer in its favour? Are you
aware of the proof that not every sequence is computable? What do you
have to say about that?
> When the question is HOW MANY DIGITS, the answer is not ANY, its a
quantity.
> "ANY FINITE" is like "not-guilty-criminal", its meaningless.
>
> Herc
- Next message: |-|erc: "Re: Why we cannot compute omega"
- Previous message: Jannick Asmus: "Re: tighter bound on square-root inequality"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: ******* TRY THESE SCI.MATH **********"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|