🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 22, 12:28 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> > Define GET.
>
> Given a binary sequence b does there exist a binary
> sequence b' such that wherever b has a 0, b' has a 1
> and wherever b has a 1 b' has a 0?


Define exists where
exists n1, n2, ...
is defined




>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > 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-
>
> > If you keep being honest Will you will have to accept the truth!
>
> > Now you are ready!  To return to THIS question about this particular
> > Infinite Random Digit Plane
>
> Look very finite to me
>
>
>
>
>
> > 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxx
> > x0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0xx
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1x
> > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1
>
> > Is that sufficient information for you to prove higher infinite sets
>
> No, of course not.  To start with it is not even infinite.
> The most you can say is that however you fill in the x's
> the list will not contain
>
> 010010100100100110000100
>
>                                  - William Hughes-



It's a pictograph of an infinite plane, as stated.

If I say THIS LINE HAS INFINITE LENGTH

---------------

then you can imply the syntax object .... or -> or whatever you wish.

Try again in your native notation.


1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxx ..
x0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxx1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1xxxxx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0xx ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1x ..
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1 ..
..


Is this partial particular infinite list of reals sufficient
to establish it's incompleteness?

* you can list any assumptions about the above partial list that you
may need.