🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 21, 8:19 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 9:09 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 21, 4:09 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 21, 4:54 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 21, 3:33 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 21, 2:30 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > My point is you can't support your claim with 2 given diagonals.
>
> > > > > > My claim is that given a list of binary sequences I can find a
> > > > > > sequence
> > > > > > not on the list.
>
> > > > > > To support this claim I need only one diagonal.  When you gave me
> > > > > > two diagonals I chose one and supported the claim.
>
> > > > > > Your claim that you can get a generalized diagonal with any finite
> > > > > > prefix is true, but irrelevant.  You cannot set the generalized
> > > > > > diagonal to an arbitrary sequence.
> > > > > >                                      - William Hughes
>
> > > > > You haven't proven your sequence is not on the list in the 2 diagonal
> > > > > version.
>
> > > > > AD1 = 1110...
> > > > > AD2 = 0110...
>
> > > > > Can you prove EITHER real is missing from my (secret) list given only
> > > > > the above?
>
> > > > > IF YES, then by all means do so!
>
> > > > There is a sequence not on your secret list that starts
> > > > 1100.  Proof: the n'th digit means that sequence is not
> > > > the n'th line of the list.  There may be other sequences that
> > > > starts 1110 on your secret list.
> > > >                                  -William Hughes-
>
> > > Well that was concise!
>
> > > But it's invalid due to the pigeon hole principle.
>
> > > My similar claim to yours is: no matter what numbers I put into the
> > > pigeon holes, there are always more empty pigeon holes than filled
> > > pigeon holes.
>
> > The pigeon hole principle does not work
> > for infinite sets.
>
> >                  - William Hughes-
>
> I'm not slotting infinite sequences into infinite pigeon holes.


Correct.  As usual you are arguing about infinite sets
using concepts that only work for finite sets.

Recall

 The anti-diagonal is formed by taking the
 diagonal and changing every 0 to 1 and 1 to 0.

Any claim that the anti-diagonal does not exist is
silly.  Any claim that the anti-diagonal is equal to
a row of the list is silly.

                         - William Hughes