|
|
"Tonico" <Tonicopm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1159605340.208078.275580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Poker Joker wrote:
>> "Alan Morgan" <amorgan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:efkegr$6d9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> >>if its true for ANY list, then it must be
>> >>true for a specific list. So if considering a single specific list
>> >>shows a flaw, then looking at ANY (ALL of them) list doesn't
>> >>help.
>> >
>> > But if it's true for ANY list then it must be true for a specific
>> > list. So if considering a single specific list shows a flaw then
>> > perhaps that list doesn't really exist.
>>
>> That's true, but that's not the entire story.
>>
>> Suppose I claim that I have a list that contains all the reals.
>> You claim you can take that list and construct a real not
>> on the list. You procede to show the construction. I would
>> claim that your construction is flawed because it is
>> self-referential, which it must be if I truly gave you a list of
>> all the reals. So in that *SPECIAL CASE*, unlike the
>> general case, your construction isn't valid. The only way
>> to eliminate that special case is to use what the
>> conclusion of the proof would be if you neglected the
>> special case.
> ************************************************************************************
> Hollie Mollie and Holy Moses!! Poker, son: not only you beliittle and
> "scoff" (or so you seem to believe you do) people that is WAY more
> prepared and educated than you to deal with these things, just as good
> old well-reknown cranks, crackpots and trolls usually do, but you also
> have the logic of a raving TV preacher trying to convince people that
> his god is a better
> player of golf than his devil.
> Common, do you REALLY believe the stupidity that you just wrote above??
> Not that it is your first in this thread, but the above one....dude!
> You wrote: "Suppose I claim that I have a list that contains all the
> reals. You claim you can take that list and construct a real not
> on the list. You procede to show the construction. I would claim that
> your construction is flawed because it is self-referential, which it
> must be if I truly gave you a list of
> all the reals...", being "if" the key word here.
Dudeman, the word *IS* "if". So why must reality be involved?
Look what you've written.
> Iff you gave a complete list of the reals then the other part would NOT
> be able to construct a real that is not in it...kid,
DAH! And any construction of such a number would be flawed.
This statement is untrue.
Perfectly grammatically correct. Just like the process that takes
all reals and produces on that wasn't in its input. The output LOOKS
good. No proof that if you feed it ALL the reals that it actually
produces as advertised. It can't.
> how hard is this
> to for you to understand? Are you trying to make the competence to
> James Harris or what?
> So the construction is flawed because YOU think it is self-referential
So you think a process that takes all reals can produce one that isn't
in the set of all reals is possible?
Wait, I get it. You want to use the consequences of having such
a process to prove that there is such a process. Now I understand
your logic.
> IF you actually gave
> a complete "list" of the reals, uh?? By your """logic""" then, it is
> IMPOSIBLE to rebuke
> anything you say, because IF it is true then the rebuttal will have, OF
> COURSE!, to be flawed....great!
It took you this long to figure that out? Of course, you can't stop
thinking that the conclusion stands on its own. So how could you
see the flaw?
|
|