|
|
Poker Joker wrote:
........nonsenses and rather weird attacks......
> So you think a process that takes all reals can produce one that isn't
> in the set of all reals is possible?
No, I don't...do you? And what process are you talking about? So far
you've only mentioned the rather huge nonsensical mumbo-jumbo "if a
list [sic] contains all the reals then trying to build a real that is
not there...blah-blah"....And if the natural number 4 were a multiple
of 3 then Moscow would be Rwanda's capital city: from a false statement
ANYTHING can be deduced. What? That there can be a list [sic]
containing all the reals? Prove it. I can prove, mathematically and not
with ranting, that it can't be so
> 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.
Well, it's refreshing to know you're understanding something at least
and at last, even if it is something produced by your own imagination.
> > 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?
Hehe...oh well: just another crank. Wanna buy a bridge with a river
under it?
Tonio
|
|