Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: riderofgiraffes <mathforum.org_am@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:26:41 EDT
No it can't. It can't use a list that
contains your algorithm's output.
Why not?
If you start with a list L1 of committees and
then apply my algorithm to that, we get a new
committee C1 that wasn't on the original list.
Now create a list L2 which is C1 prepended to L1.
Tell me why we can't now apply my algorithm
to L2.
Why would that change the fact that each Ln is the
output of an algorithm? Running some algorithm in
a loop n times is still an algorithm and therefore
is contained in the collection of all algorithms
that output a committee.
You still haven't answered the question. Why
do you claim it can't be run on its own output?
You seem unable to stick to the point. Let me
make a few observations:
* Running it n times means it's no longer an
algorithm that produces *a* committee. Now
it's an algorithm producing n committees,
and that's not what you were talking about.
* It's no longer my algorithm, because my
algorithm takes any list and gets run once
to produce a committee not on the list.
* This whole business about running it on
its own output is completely irrelevant.
There is nothing stopping you from running
it again, this time on the list with one
of the members being the result from the
previous time, but that's not what I was
talking about, is off-topic, and irrelevant.
* I don't know why you're talking about running
algorithms on their own output. It really is
a complete red-herring/irrelevancy.
* You have agreed that when my algorithm gets
run once on a list of committees, and list
of committees, it produces a committee not
on its input list. That means you've agreed
with the original point.
* If you want to talk about running algorithms
on their own output, and claim it's impossible,
or whatever, fine. It's not what I was talking
about, and I don't care.
It's now clear that you're talking about something
completely different from my original post. No
wonder I was confused. I've wasted a lot of time
trying to understand you, thinking that you were
discussing my original point, only to find that
you weren't. That's pretty annoying.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: Tonico
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: georgie
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- References:
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: georgie
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- Prev by Date: DFT size
- Next by Date: Re: in fact zero _is_ neither positive nor negative. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|