Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory

In article <1184868790.872270.210900@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

When WM declares his logical equivalents of "black is white and white is
black", he cannot back them up with proofs like Randy can.

When WM declares, as he does above, that there are as many 1's in some
finite line of 1's as there are in a "line" with more that any finite
number of 1's, that is precisely what WM is doing.



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?

Unless that "number" is constant, which does not seem to be the case,
its parity and primeness are both time dependent.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... > product of the set domain and the set density. ... Can we or can we not compare sizes of arbitrary sets or do you believe ... To avoid wasting his time with unlucky ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Can a parameter be passed to a function
    ... Sizes must be compile-time constants. ... sizes are elaboration time constant. ... some constant to declare vector size of function return type and same ...
    (comp.lang.verilog)
  • Re: How to do the equivalent of describe with a SELECT?
    ... sizes of the variables in the target table. ... Such is the fate of a developer hardcoding everything and not using ... The typical solution is to declare a huge array size which will ... if (numberOfLines> MAXLINES) { ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
    ... > Can we or can we not compare sizes of arbitrary sets or do you believe ... It's also not infinite. ... infinities drectly related to finite units. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: C++ vs C executable file size
    ... Cabiran wrote: ... > You compare different code ... ... have you tried compiling the same code ... > the difference between sizes in your example is a little bit ... ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)