Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:13:10 -0700
On 17 Jul., 18:44, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:07 am, WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Jul., 20:45, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1184602377.255290.254...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 Jul., 07:20, Virgil <vir...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1184550638.931818.34...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
IF one has a non-empty ordered set without a largest element, one can
easily prove
But IF one has an empty non-ordered set with a largest element, what
can one prove then?
How can there be a "largest" if there is no ordering by which to compare
sizes?
Can WM explain how to identify a largest without being able to compare
relative sizes?
Can you explain how you check all lines of an infinite list while
behind every checked line there remain infinitely unchecked lines?
Every line is associated with a natural number n.
If you prove something is true about any line numbered n,
then you have proved it for all lines without having
explicitly checked. Why? Because "any line numbered n"
covers every line. There are no exceptions.
I can declare without checking that all even numbers
end in 0, 2, 4, 6 or 8. In particular, I can declare
with checking that all even numbers of 1000 digits
have that property.
And I can declare that every initial segment of the diagonal of the
following matrix is also the initial segment of a line. And the
existence of the whole diagonal (containing a digit 1 at every index
n) is only possible if there is a column with as many 1's and also a
line with as many 1's.
1000...
11000...
111000...
....
Do you have to check all of the 10^1000/2 1000-digit
numbers to convince yourself of the truth of that
statement?
For such simply represented numbers there is no problem, of course.
But would you immediately know whether the (comparatively small)
number of all leptons (minus antileptons) of the universe is an even
number? Is it a prime number?
Are you so little aware of such problems, or do you only pretend it?
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- References:
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Albrecht
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Don Stockbauer
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Rotwang
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Stephen J. Herschkorn
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Stephen J. Herschkorn
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Calvin
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Another question-25 years since high school math...
- Next by Date: Optimization Problem
- Previous by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Index(es):