🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 21, 9:30 pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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-



THINK WILL!  You've never produced a missing anti-diagonal ever have
you?

You're not using Cantor's Proof, you're using Cantor's Meta Argument.

SHOW ME A LIST AND A ROW THAT EQUALS THE ANTIDIAGONAL.

i.e. Show me a digit position where DIAG[d] = DIAG[d]+1

That's all your argument amounts to.  20 posters have repeated
it 5 times each in this one discussion thread.

You have NEVER produced a unique sequence of digits, and you can NEVER
even get the 1st digit of an antidiagonal for this set of 10
diagonals.

Digit 1 of diagonal


-1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--0-
[P][P][P][P][P][P][P][P][P][P]


.




digit 2 of diagonal


-1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--0-
[ ][ ][ ][P][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]


.


digit 3 of diagonal


-1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--0-
[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][P][ ][ ][ ]


....




How many different digit sequences can you come up with with INFINITE
amount of DIAGONALS?