🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 21, 4:58 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 5:31 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 3:39 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 4:11 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 21, 2:27 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > For L1 not containing every real number I can certainly
> > > > > > form the sequence
>
> > > > > > L(1,1), L(2,2), L(3,3) ...
>
> > > > > > and change every 0 to 1 and every 1 to 0.
>
> > > > > > Your claim is that the is a list L2 for which
> > > > > > I cannot do this.
>
> > > > > >                        - William Hughes-
>
> > > > > My claim is your sequence is random or arbitrary.
>
> > > > No, once the list is fixed the sequence
>
> > > > L(1,1), L(2,2), L(3,3)
>
> > > > exists and is fixed. Do you really think
> > > > you can give a list and I cannot make a sequence
> > > > from the main diagonal?  (If there is a list
> > > > containing all binary sequences I cannot, so
> > > > this is what you are claiming.)
>
> > > >     - William Hughes
>
> > > > P.S. Nothing special about the main diagonal by the way,
> > > >      It's just the diagonal I happened to choose.
>
> > <snip refusal to answer question>
>
> > Do you really think that you can give me a list and
> > I cannot make a sequence from the main diagonal?
>
> >                 - William Hughes-
>
> no!

Do you really thing that there is a binary sequence
from which you cannot get another binary sequence
by changing every 0 to 1 and every 1 to 0?

> but you can make any sequence from any diagonal.
>

Almost, but only by shuffling rows and getting
new list.  And you can't make any sequence,
just most sequences.

> Take your pick.  D[1] = 0..9  D[2] = 0..9  D[3] = 0..9  ....
>
> Will you answer my question whether your claim is equivalent/also
> to give a missing real from any generalised diagonal,

Yes, I have already said so numerous times.  There is nothing
special about the "main diagonal" it is just the one I
happen to use.


> and if that is equivalent to the concealed digits methodology?

If you cleaned this up to the point one could be relatively
certain, probably.

                        - William Hughes