🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 22, 8:39 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 9:04 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 12:44 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 12:38 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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
>
> > > Please stop the transparent evasions and answer the question.
>
> > >                     - William Hughes
>
> > If you feel you have to put restrictions on "get" or "exists"
> > do so, but please attempt to be clear.
>
> I don't need to put a restriction on an infinite sequence of Exists
> d1, Exists d2...
>
> as I previously suggested.
>
> I am rechallenging your first declaration of 'making' a sequence from
> the identify diagonal.
>
> It's independent of the set of reals, so although it is defined, it
> is not specified.
>


Well, if you want to say that

L(1,1), L(2,2), L(3,3) ...

is not specified because it is possible to change L and
get something else, I can't stop you, but you are being
silly.

> i.e. you haven't specified any particular real or any exclusion of
> particular reals.
>
> If you have a point then get on with it, I have made my argument
> crystal clear in 20 different flavours, it fairly evident that I can
> generate ANY sequence of binary digits at all from the generalised
> diagonal.

Nope.  While you can generate almost all sequences, you cannot
gernerate
any sequence.  E.g.  you cannot generate an anti-row. Your
"crystal clear" argument is wrong because you confuse
almost all with al


> If you answer each question in my post instead of snipping it will
> save me backtracking 10 posts every time.
>
> Do you agree with the following.
>
> A SET HAS NO INTRINSIC ORDER

but a list does

> A SET MAY BE COUNTABLE

or uncountable

> THE 'PERMUTATION OF A SET' WHEN LISTED FOR INSPECTION/OUTPUT IS
> IRRELEVANT

so you can choose whichever permutation is most convenient

> THE DIAGONAL DEPENDS ON THE PERMUTATION

trivial

> THE DIAGONAL IS IRRELEVANT

Nope.  *Which* diagonal is irrelevant.  You can choose any
diagonal you want.



>
> No more responses where you go
>
> "NOPE!  TELL ME THE ROW WHERE THE ANTI-DIAGONAL IS!"
>
> That's a waste of time.

Clearly, since you refuse to admit that if there is
a list of all real numbers then it does not have
an anti-diagonal.

                 - William Hughes