July 14th, 2017, 10:18 AM  #11 
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,390 Thanks: 100  
July 14th, 2017, 10:39 AM  #12 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 428 Thanks: 144  
July 14th, 2017, 12:01 PM  #13  
Senior Member Joined: Mar 2015 From: New Jersey Posts: 1,390 Thanks: 100  Quote:
For all n means no matter how large the sequence is, up to infinity. So what? So Cantors Diagonal Argument fails, which is consistent with what I show in: Is an Infinite Binary Sequence a Natural Number?  
July 14th, 2017, 12:18 PM  #14  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: USA Posts: 364 Thanks: 26  Quote:
You're back to banging your head against the wall with the same old nonsense you've brought here time and time again. I say lock the thread. This is past ridiculous.  
July 14th, 2017, 03:34 PM  #15 
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,956 Thanks: 547  Some sites are more freewheeling than others. I like freewheelingness. Nobody is ever obligated to read or respond to any particular post. This site has a fairly permissive moderation policy, that's why I manage to still be here I say let it all hang out and if you don't like someone's posts or threads, don't read them. My 1.999... cents on that. It's ironic that you in particular would call for the suppression of alternative ideas in which the holder of those ideas seems difficult to reach. I went to quite a lot of trouble to reach you under similar circumstances on at least two different lengthy threads. I didn't call for your threads to be put on hold. I challenged myself to get through to you. Agree? Some relatively new participants around here have joined us from a far more restrictive site. They must see virtue in the openmindedness and tolerance for free speech around here, even at the occasional cost of threads that some people don't like. Besides, aren't these alternative discussions fun? Else why would so many people (generally the same handful of people) invest so much time and energy in acting outraged? Their other choice would be to just click on something else. Last edited by Maschke; July 14th, 2017 at 03:49 PM. 
July 14th, 2017, 04:44 PM  #16  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: USA Posts: 364 Thanks: 26  Quote:
 
July 14th, 2017, 05:09 PM  #17  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 1,956 Thanks: 547  Quote:
Quote:
I had an interaction with Zylo once where I said to myself: * I can insult him. That's rude. When X insults Y that tells us something about X and nothing about Y. * I can ignore him. That's sane. Seven billion people have chosen this path. * I can try to get through to him and view the exercise as a personal challenge to make my own mathematical exposition so clear that it cannot be denied. This was a thread discussing the proposition that a function between metric spaces is continuous in the $\epsilon$$\delta$ sense if and only if it's continuous with respect to the topological definition that the inverse image of an open set is open. In the course of working with Zylo on this I got my own instincts and intuitions about this theorem as clear as they've ever been since I proved the same thing in real analysis many many (many!) years ago. I ended up drawing a beautiful diagram. I gained a lot from that experience. I enjoyed myself and I ran some math through my head. Isn't that why we're all here? There are always those three choices: Insult someone who has done nothing to harm you in any way, and is only expressing their truth, as wrong or nonstandard or confused as it may sometimes be; or IGNORE them, which seven billion people walking the earth have managed to do; or challenge the hell out of yourself to create a mathematical exposition that is so clear that it cannot be refuted even by a stubborn doubter. I offer as evidence this thread. We have no control over what others say and do, but we can choose who we are in the way we respond. With insults, with apathy, or with selfchallenge to perfect our own understanding. Last edited by Maschke; July 14th, 2017 at 05:26 PM.  
July 14th, 2017, 06:00 PM  #18  
Senior Member Joined: Jun 2014 From: USA Posts: 364 Thanks: 26  Quote:
Now, maybe I'm wrong. But, in this case, I don't care to risk that assumption. In fact, I'd argue that by prolonging this (even if well intentioned), you may very well be ignoring zylo in other ways more important and thus have chosen both your second and third options:  
July 15th, 2017, 03:18 AM  #19  
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 19,162 Thanks: 1638  Quote:
If n isn't finite, you can't claim that the "number" of nonterminating binary sequences is greater than n without explaining what that would mean. In a binary sequence, the digits are countable (regardless of whether the sequence terminates). If the "number" of nonterminating sequences is "greater than countable", that's consistent with Cantor's conclusion that the set of all nonterminating sequences isn't countable.  
July 15th, 2017, 05:56 AM  #20  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,327 Thanks: 2451 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
As with the other guy this week, this thread serves only two functions: 1) to feed Zylo's ego, because he really isn't interested in listening to counterarguments about his (nonsensical) theory; and 2) confusing students who happen to look at it. This latter is serious because there's a good chance that such a student is already confused and that that is their reason for stopping by. If Zylo demonstrated any intention to listen to argument and either accept or respond to it, I'd think differently. But as it is this thread should be closed. The suggestion that "for all $n$“ includes infinite values is sufficient to demonstrate that Zylo doesn't know what he's talking about. And the fact that its the umpteenth thread he's started on the subject shows that he isn't interested in engaging with reasoned argument. It's time to shut this nonsense down.  

Tags 
argument, cantors, diagonal, digits 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Cantors Diagonal Argument, Logic  zylo  Topology  100  May 10th, 2017 09:00 AM 
Cantors Diagonal Argument is Not Diagonal  v8archie  Topology  0  June 23rd, 2016 09:16 AM 
Cantors Diagonal Argument and Epimenides  zylo  Topology  4  March 8th, 2016 06:08 AM 
Cantors Diag Argument Proves Reals Countable  zylo  Topology  6  March 5th, 2016 02:09 AM 
The Super Diagonal Argument  AplanisTophet  Number Theory  0  October 24th, 2014 08:59 PM 