🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 20, 11:54 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 11:51 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 10:48 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 21, 11:36 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 20, 10:26 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 20, 11:32 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 20, 8:51 am, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Can you give a specific example of a set theory in which
> > > > > > > there is no example of
>
> > > > > > >   There exists a collection E, such that given any list
> > > > > > >   L of members of E, there exists a member of E not on the list.
>
> > > > > > > ?
>
> > > > > > Yep!  ZFC in fact!
>
> > > > > > LIST1
> > > > > > [0]001....
> > > > > > 1[0]01....
> > > > > > 00[0]1....
> > > > > > 111[1]....
> > > > > > ...
>
> > > > > > DIAG1 = 0.0001...
>
> > > > > > LIST2 = LIST1.ROWSWAP(1,2)
>
> > > > > > [1]001....   = LIST1(Row2)
> > > > > > 0[0]01....   = LIST1(Row1)
> > > > > > 00[0]1....
> > > > > > 111[1]....
> > > > > > ...
>
> > > > > > DIAG2 = 0.1001...
>
> > > > > > I can submit either of DIAG1 or DIAG2 for the anti-diag proof.
>
> > > > > > DIAG1 = 0.0001...
> > > > > > DIAG2 = 0.1001...
>
> > > > > > The digit expansions after digit 1 are identical.
>
> > > > > They can't be.  They can be identical for any finite stretch
> > > > > you like, however they cannot be identical for an infinite
> > > > > stretch.
> > > > >                         - William Hughes
>
> > > > Well that was piffle  (I was thinking of something else).  The
> > > > diagonals
> > > > can clearly be the same.
>
> > > > One real that is missing from the list is
>
> > > > 0.1110...
>
> > > >                    - William Hughes-
>
> > > And another missing real, without looking too hard?
>
> > There are lots and lots (indeed any random real will be
> > missing from the list with probability 1.) However, I only
> > need one so I wont look at all.
>
> YOU WON'T LOOK AT ALL?

No, I don't have to.  I have already noted that uncountably
others exist.  And I acknowledge that you can get some by
using "generalized" diagonals.  However, they are irrelevant
to the claim that one such number exists.

If you have a point to make, make it,  You are as capable
of reversing DIAG2 as I am.

                   -  William Hughes