Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.math > #415196 > unrolled thread
| Started by | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-10 03:19 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-06-11 05:14 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 206 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.math
Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-10 03:19 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 03:27 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 03:32 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. jeff_jo@verizon.net - 2018-06-10 11:03 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-10 20:13 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. jeff_jo@verizon.net - 2018-06-10 12:19 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-10 11:35 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. jeff_jo@verizon.net - 2018-06-10 12:38 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-10 12:52 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-10 22:25 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-10 14:19 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 14:42 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 14:49 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 05:10 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 05:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. jeff_jo@verizon.net - 2018-06-10 18:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 00:52 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 05:17 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 05:25 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-10 14:13 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-11 03:16 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 05:10 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-11 05:17 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-10 13:00 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-10 14:15 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-10 14:53 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 05:09 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 07:02 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 07:20 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 07:36 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 08:35 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 10:40 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 11:31 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 12:53 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 12:59 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 13:55 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-11 15:23 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-12 04:53 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 06:10 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-12 08:42 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 09:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-12 11:06 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-12 11:15 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-12 12:19 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-13 02:14 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 04:46 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-13 06:17 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 09:43 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-13 09:53 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 10:27 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-13 10:51 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-13 10:59 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-14 03:32 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 03:48 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-14 04:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 04:16 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-14 05:24 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 05:49 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-14 12:39 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 13:11 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-15 03:26 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. wpihughes@gmail.com - 2018-06-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-16 02:42 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. konyberg <konyberg@online.no> - 2018-06-16 03:20 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-14 14:20 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 03:51 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-15 08:19 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 08:58 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 09:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-16 02:42 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-17 14:45 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 13:18 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-17 14:22 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-17 22:43 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-18 04:16 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-18 19:02 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-20 06:33 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-20 18:25 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-21 04:10 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-21 07:13 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-21 10:24 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 11:15 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-21 16:10 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-22 02:32 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-22 04:19 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-22 18:55 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-23 07:37 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-23 06:14 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-24 09:38 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-24 07:52 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-24 11:55 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-24 11:57 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-25 02:38 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-25 03:20 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 18:44 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-24 08:04 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-06-24 11:55 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-25 20:40 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-26 05:46 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-26 18:53 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-06-27 06:23 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-27 18:33 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-06-27 12:15 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-27 21:54 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-27 22:28 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-27 18:13 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-06-28 06:46 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-28 16:07 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 07:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 07:55 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-29 19:40 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-30 07:38 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-30 14:59 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-30 14:41 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-06-30 22:42 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-06-30 21:51 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 20:33 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-07-02 14:48 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-01 04:22 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 20:35 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-02 11:32 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-02 23:10 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 14:36 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-03 05:42 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-07-03 14:49 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-02 18:47 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-03 05:52 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-03 19:28 -0500
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. jeff_jo@verizon.net - 2018-07-04 10:38 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-05 02:43 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 04:58 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-05 06:46 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-06 02:32 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-07-06 02:36 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 02:13 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 02:17 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-07-07 05:35 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 02:32 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-06 04:57 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-07-06 05:11 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 02:16 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-07 05:54 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 02:35 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-08 06:42 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. jeff_jo@verizon.net - 2018-07-05 05:34 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-05 07:07 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. jeff_jo@verizon.net - 2018-07-06 08:11 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-06 11:24 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 02:25 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-07 05:25 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. jeff_jo@verizon.net - 2018-07-07 15:46 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-08 06:31 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-09 01:44 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-09 04:43 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 22:49 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. transfinity01@gmail.com - 2018-06-29 07:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. konyberg <konyberg@online.no> - 2018-06-29 11:58 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-30 06:08 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-30 15:12 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-30 07:38 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 02:12 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-03 05:55 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 01:48 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 09:55 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-07-05 03:04 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 23:03 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-25 02:35 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 22:53 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 13:39 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-17 14:21 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-17 23:28 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 23:58 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-18 04:18 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 04:22 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 04:25 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-18 06:20 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 06:33 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 06:38 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-18 09:38 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. FredJeffries <fredjeffries@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 10:36 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 11:21 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 11:34 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. bursejan@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 11:47 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-18 22:45 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 23:33 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-21 04:10 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 22:59 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-25 02:35 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-10 20:51 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 05:01 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-11 08:38 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 11:37 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-11 12:33 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 12:58 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-11 13:47 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 14:28 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Python <python@python.invalid> - 2018-06-11 23:45 +0200
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-11 19:32 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-12 05:15 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-12 05:56 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-12 08:44 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-06-12 09:19 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 13:32 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 21:35 -0700
Re: Cantor's list is more broad than high. WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> - 2018-06-11 05:14 -0700
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-26 18:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pgujle$4a2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416396 |
On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: > Am Dienstag, 26. Juni 2018 03:40:32 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > > >>>>> So they are about "things". I denote these things as elements. >>>> >>>> Not directly, >>> >>> Directly. >> >> No mention is made of any particular element by the quantifiers. > > Obviously there are more subtle ways of mentioning one or all than you are able to understand. That's as may be, but we aren't talking about them. >>> Then obviously every line has more post-diagonal elements than pre-diagonal elements. >> >> Obviously. > > Did you note the application of a quantifier without direct menioning though? Probably not. "menioning"? >>> Since the post-diagonal elements are irrelevant for the diagonal argument, almost all elements are irrelevant for the diagonal argument. Only few elements denoting fractions are relevant. >> >> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the >> diagonal argument. > > The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. It still doesn't matter what they are. >>>>> The diagonal has infinitely many elements following upon every element. If infinity is finished, then at least half of them belong to lines with more pre-diagonal elements than post diagonal elements. >>>> >>>> No. >>> >>> Striking argument. >> >> It's sufficient. > > In matheology perhaps. Since you call truth matheology, I'm fine with that. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 06:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b8bc2ae-4ad8-4e29-91a1-94ffe3fda307@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416473 |
Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: > >> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the > >> diagonal argument. > > > > The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. > > The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. They fail. Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. > It still doesn't matter what they are. Since they do not what you claim. If every d_n fails, then all d_n fail (if "all" was a meaningful quantification here at all). > > Since you call truth matheology, I'm fine with that. Matheology is not truth but the belief in undefinable "real" numbers and such stuff. It is the belief: If all fail, then infinitely many will succeed. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 18:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b33bc4f$0$15200$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #416543 |
Doktor 'Venom' Frankenheim wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: > > >>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the >>>> diagonal argument. >>> >>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. >> >> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. > > They fail. > Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. ... > Since they do not what you claim. If every d_n fails, then all d_n fail (if "all" was a meaningful quantification here at all). By the *same* logic: I do have 4 euros, a beer cost 3, so EVERY single euro coin fails to be necessary to pay a beer, then - with the *exact* *same* *logic* you use - no money is necessary in order to pay a beer. Your sophistry never convinced anyone, Herr Crank Mueckenheim, your students just mocked you in order to obtain high grades. A new e-mail : transfinity01@gmail.com? How come Herr Mueckenheim? Do Hochschule Augsburg bother that you were posting from their domain, Herr Mueckenheim?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11399c7d-3e06-4373-bab9-d3278ec49bf8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416564 |
Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 18:33:27 UTC+2 schrieb Python: > Doktor 'Venom' Frankenheim wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > >> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > >>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the > >>>> diagonal argument. > >>> > >>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. > >> > >> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. > > > > They fail. > > Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. > ... > > Since they do not what you claim. If every d_n fails, then all d_n fail (if "all" was a meaningful quantification here at all). > > By the *same* logic: I do have 4 euros, a beer cost 3, so EVERY single > euro coin fails to be necessary to pay a beer, then - with the *exact* > *same* *logic* you use - no money is necessary in order to pay a beer. No, that is nonsense because the digits are ordered. It is not possible to choose arbitrarily. > > Your sophistry never convinced anyone My arguments convinced hundreds of sane people. > A new e-mail : transfinity01@gmail.com? How come Herr Mueckenheim? Google has stopped me the other day when my limited account was exhausted because I needed to answer so many questions. Obviously this is an interesting topic. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@python.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 21:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5b33eb75$0$20336$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #416582 |
Doktor 'Venom' Frankenheim wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 18:33:27 UTC+2 schrieb Python: >> Doktor 'Venom' Frankenheim wrote: >>> Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the >>>>>> diagonal argument. >>>>> >>>>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. >>>> >>>> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. >>> >>> They fail. >>> Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. >> ... >>> Since they do not what you claim. If every d_n fails, then all d_n fail (if "all" was a meaningful quantification here at all). >> >> By the *same* logic: I do have 4 euros, a beer cost 3, so EVERY single >> euro coin fails to be necessary to pay a beer, then - with the *exact* >> *same* *logic* you use - no money is necessary in order to pay a beer. > > No, that is nonsense because the digits are ordered. It is not possible to choose arbitrarily. As being ordered or not is not part of your fake proof, your objection is irrelevant. This is because of this kind of idiotic answer that EVERYONE can be convinced easily that you are a failed mathematician and definitely incompetent in teaching any math. (Not to mention your filthy intellectual dishonesty) >> Your sophistry never convinced anyone > > My arguments convinced hundreds of sane people. This is one of many of your delusions, Herr Mueckenheim. >> A new e-mail : transfinity01@gmail.com? How come Herr Mueckenheim? > > Google has stopped me the other day when my limited account was exhausted because I needed to answer so many questions. Obviously this is an interesting topic. Another idiotic irrealistic lie, Herr Mueckenheim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 22:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3601a6b4-4304-4480-925e-7cc6f11bc632@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416582 |
Den onsdag 27 juni 2018 kl. 21:16:01 UTC+2 skrev transf...@gmail.com: > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 18:33:27 UTC+2 schrieb Python: > > Doktor 'Venom' Frankenheim wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > > >> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the > > >>>> diagonal argument. > > >>> > > >>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. > > >> > > >> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. > > > > > > They fail. > > > Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. > > ... > > > Since they do not what you claim. If every d_n fails, then all d_n fail (if "all" was a meaningful quantification here at all). > > > > By the *same* logic: I do have 4 euros, a beer cost 3, so EVERY single > > euro coin fails to be necessary to pay a beer, then - with the *exact* > > *same* *logic* you use - no money is necessary in order to pay a beer. > > No, that is nonsense because the digits are ordered. It is not possible to choose arbitrarily. > > > > Your sophistry never convinced anyone > > My arguments convinced hundreds of sane people. > > > A new e-mail : transfinity01@gmail.com? How come Herr Mueckenheim? > > Google has stopped me the other day when my limited account was exhausted because I needed to answer so many questions. Obviously this is an interesting topic. > > Regards, WM Cranks convince always the less literate, that does not maen you are right in anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-27 18:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ph15na$o7v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416543 |
On 6/27/2018 8:23 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: >>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the >>>> diagonal argument. >>> >>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. >> >> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. > > They fail. > Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. For which n in |N is the digit d_n the entire sequence? >> It still doesn't matter what they are. > > Since they do not what you claim. If every d_n fails, then all d_n fail (if "all" was a meaningful quantification here at all). You're equivocating, again. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-28 06:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5511e7ee-2146-467d-ab85-c515fda46729@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416603 |
Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 01:13:53 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 6/27/2018 8:23 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > >> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: > >>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the > >>>> diagonal argument. > >>> > >>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. > >> > >> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. > > > > They fail. > > Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. > > For which n in |N is the digit d_n the entire sequence? Here we have the universal quantification. If not applicable here then it is not applicable in Cantor's list. For all n: g(n) = 1 - f(n). For instance: Cantor's hat argument is correct for all finite lines L(n). Why do you think it holds for an infinite set? > > >> It still doesn't matter what they are. > > > > Since they do not what you claim. If every d_n fails, then all d_n fail (if "all" was a meaningful quantification here at all). > > You're equivocating, again. I apply the same logic that applies functions and bijections. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-28 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ph3ina$crp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416641 |
On 6/28/2018 8:46 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 01:13:53 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 6/27/2018 8:23 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: >>> Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: >>>>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the >>>>>> diagonal argument. >>>>> >>>>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. >>>> >>>> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. >>> >>> They fail. >>> Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. >> >> For which n in |N is the digit d_n the entire sequence? > > Here we have the universal quantification. If not applicable here then it is not applicable in Cantor's list. For all n: g(n) = 1 - f(n). Who said it wasn't applicable? The problem is that there is no n in |N for which the entire sequence is d_n. Therefore, it's invalid to conclude that the entire sequence has a property just because every d_n has that property. > For instance: Cantor's hat argument is correct for all finite lines L(n). Why do you think it holds for an infinite set? Cantor's hat argument? >>>> It still doesn't matter what they are. >>> >>> Since they do not what you claim. If every d_n fails, then all d_n fail (if "all" was a meaningful quantification here at all). >> >> You're equivocating, again. > > I apply the same logic that applies functions and bijections. You won't convince me by equivocating with functions and bijections either. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | transfinity01@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-29 07:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2a7d4b2-da01-4b37-901a-17845d0f7b5d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416707 |
Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 23:08:00 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 6/28/2018 8:46 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 01:13:53 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > >> On 6/27/2018 8:23 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > >>>> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: > >>>>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the > >>>>>> diagonal argument. > >>>>> > >>>>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. > >>>> > >>>> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. > >>> > >>> They fail. > >>> Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. > >> > >> For which n in |N is the digit d_n the entire sequence? > > > > Here we have the universal quantification. If not applicable here then it is not applicable in Cantor's list. For all n: g(n) = 1 - f(n). > > Who said it wasn't applicable? The problem is that there is no n in |N > for which the entire sequence is d_n. Therefore, it's invalid to > conclude that the entire sequence has a property just because every d_n > has that property. Why then do you believe that Cantor's diagonal is defined and different from all entries of the list? There is only every g_n defined. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bursejan@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-29 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0d6a63bf-e35b-4f4a-bb9f-12127c80aee1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416798 |
The diagonal is: d(n) = 1 - f(n)(n) What is this nonsense g(n) = 1 - f(n) ? Am Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 16:01:33 UTC+2 schrieb transf...@gmail.com: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 23:08:00 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > > On 6/28/2018 8:46 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > > > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 01:13:53 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > > >> On 6/27/2018 8:23 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > > >>>> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: > > >>>>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the > > >>>>>> diagonal argument. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. > > >>>> > > >>>> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. > > >>> > > >>> They fail. > > >>> Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. > > >> > > >> For which n in |N is the digit d_n the entire sequence? > > > > > > Here we have the universal quantification. If not applicable here then it is not applicable in Cantor's list. For all n: g(n) = 1 - f(n). > > > > Who said it wasn't applicable? The problem is that there is no n in |N > > for which the entire sequence is d_n. Therefore, it's invalid to > > conclude that the entire sequence has a property just because every d_n > > has that property. > > Why then do you believe that Cantor's diagonal is defined and different from all entries of the list? There is only every g_n defined. > > Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-29 19:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ph6jhe$c7t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416798 |
On 6/29/2018 9:01 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 23:08:00 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 6/28/2018 8:46 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: >>> Am Donnerstag, 28. Juni 2018 01:13:53 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>> On 6/27/2018 8:23 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Am Mittwoch, 27. Juni 2018 01:53:25 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>>>> On 6/26/2018 7:46 AM, WM wrote: >>>>>>>> Neither the pre-diagonal nor the post-diagonal elements matter for the >>>>>>>> diagonal argument. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The pre-diagonal elements with their indices are required to enumerate the columns up to the diagonal element. >>>>>> >>>>>> The post-diagonal elements are required to uniquely specify the number. >>>>> >>>>> They fail. >>>>> Simply apply logic: For ever n in |N: digit d_n does not specify a real number. >>>> >>>> For which n in |N is the digit d_n the entire sequence? >>> >>> Here we have the universal quantification. If not applicable here then it is not applicable in Cantor's list. For all n: g(n) = 1 - f(n). >> >> Who said it wasn't applicable? The problem is that there is no n in |N >> for which the entire sequence is d_n. Therefore, it's invalid to >> conclude that the entire sequence has a property just because every d_n >> has that property. > > Why then do you believe that Cantor's diagonal is defined and different from all entries of the list? There is only every g_n defined. Unlike the case you just responded to, saying it differs from every entry in the list is the same as saying it differs from every entry in the list. Now if I were to conclude from the fact that it differs from every entry in the list that it differs from the list, I would be making the same mistake as you do above. We know it differs from the list from a different argument. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 07:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62c13ce8-db1d-4fc1-b793-3106c75fec6e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416844 |
Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 02:40:20 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 6/29/2018 9:01 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > Now if I were to conclude from the fact that it differs from > every entry in the list that it differs from the list, I would be making > the same mistake as you do above. Of course it is the same argument. But it is Cantor's argument. > We know it differs from the list from > a different argument. But this is kept secret? Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ph8nfe$b28$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416878 |
On 6/30/2018 9:38 AM, WM wrote: > Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 02:40:20 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 6/29/2018 9:01 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > >> Now if I were to conclude from the fact that it differs from >> every entry in the list that it differs from the list, I would be making >> the same mistake as you do above. > > Of course it is the same argument. But it is Cantor's argument. In the argument that you snipped, the conclusion was that it differs from each of the elements of the list. That does not make the mistake that you made. >> We know it differs from the list from >> a different argument. > > But this is kept secret? No. Instead it's so trivial no one feels a need to discuss it. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 14:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <160bb9ab-3c06-4bb6-9078-fd2a8b5a0195@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416897 |
Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 21:59:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > On 6/30/2018 9:38 AM, WM wrote: > > Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 02:40:20 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > >> On 6/29/2018 9:01 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Now if I were to conclude from the fact that it differs from > >> every entry in the list that it differs from the list, I would be making > >> the same mistake as you do above. > > > > Of course it is the same argument. But it is Cantor's argument. > > In the argument that you snipped, the conclusion was that it differs > from each of the elements of the list. That does not make the mistake > that you made. It does the same as I did since each element is at a finite place. > > >> We know it differs from the list from > >> a different argument. > > > > But this is kept secret? > > No. Instead it's so trivial no one feels a need to discuss it. It is your delusion. Of course Cantor applied only finite n and then extrapolated to an infinite list, by his second creation principle: wenn irgendeine bestimmte Sukzession definierter ganzer realer Zahlen vorliegt, von denen keine größte existiert, auf Grund dieses zweiten Erzeugungsprinzips eine neue Zahl geschaffen wird (Cantor). Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 22:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ph9iih$aa1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416901 |
On 6/30/2018 4:41 PM, WM wrote: > Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 21:59:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >> On 6/30/2018 9:38 AM, WM wrote: >>> Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 02:40:20 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>> On 6/29/2018 9:01 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Now if I were to conclude from the fact that it differs from >>>> every entry in the list that it differs from the list, I would be making >>>> the same mistake as you do above. >>> >>> Of course it is the same argument. But it is Cantor's argument. >> >> In the argument that you snipped, the conclusion was that it differs >> from each of the elements of the list. That does not make the mistake >> that you made. > > It does the same as I did since each element is at a finite place. Don't lie. You also applied the result to something that wasn't an element. The sequence is not one of its elements, yet you applied the result to it. >>>> We know it differs from the list from >>>> a different argument. >>> >>> But this is kept secret? >> >> No. Instead it's so trivial no one feels a need to discuss it. > > It is your delusion. You think the list is the diagonal of the list? I'm not the one who is deluded here. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-30 21:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ph9mkp$7b3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416907 |
On 6/30/2018 8:42 PM, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/30/2018 4:41 PM, WM wrote: >> Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 21:59:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>> On 6/30/2018 9:38 AM, WM wrote: >>>> Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 02:40:20 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>>> On 6/29/2018 9:01 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Now if I were to conclude from the fact that it differs from >>>>> every entry in the list that it differs from the list, I would be >>>>> making >>>>> the same mistake as you do above. >>>> >>>> Of course it is the same argument. But it is Cantor's argument. >>> >>> In the argument that you snipped, the conclusion was that it differs >>> from each of the elements of the list. That does not make the mistake >>> that you made. >> >> It does the same as I did since each element is at a finite place. > > Don't lie. You also applied the result to something that wasn't an > element. The sequence is not one of its elements, yet you applied the > result to it. Not sure if it relates WM, a sequence can be an element of another sequence. [a, b, c, ...] where: a = [A0, A1, A2, ...] b = [B0, B1, B2, ...] c = [C0, C1, C2, ...] [...] Also, what if: A0 = [A0_0, A0_1, A0_2, ...] and so on... Ahhhh, this is a simple sequence of sequences of sequences, so to speak... ;^) This explodes. > >>>>> We know it differs from the list from >>>>> a different argument. >>>> >>>> But this is kept secret? >>> >>> No. Instead it's so trivial no one feels a need to discuss it. >> >> It is your delusion. > > You think the list is the diagonal of the list? I'm not the one who is > deluded here. > > Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Shobe, Martin" <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-01 20:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <phbvdt$ghe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416910 |
On 6/30/2018 11:51 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 6/30/2018 8:42 PM, Shobe, Martin wrote: >> On 6/30/2018 4:41 PM, WM wrote: >>> Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 21:59:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>> On 6/30/2018 9:38 AM, WM wrote: >>>>> Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 02:40:20 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>>>> On 6/29/2018 9:01 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Now if I were to conclude from the fact that it differs from >>>>>> every entry in the list that it differs from the list, I would be >>>>>> making >>>>>> the same mistake as you do above. >>>>> >>>>> Of course it is the same argument. But it is Cantor's argument. >>>> >>>> In the argument that you snipped, the conclusion was that it differs >>>> from each of the elements of the list. That does not make the mistake >>>> that you made. >>> >>> It does the same as I did since each element is at a finite place. >> >> Don't lie. You also applied the result to something that wasn't an >> element. The sequence is not one of its elements, yet you applied the >> result to it. > > Not sure if it relates WM, a sequence can be an element of another > sequence. I'm aware of that and it doesn't apply here. Martin Shobe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-02 14:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <phe6il$600$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #416990 |
On 7/1/2018 6:33 PM, Shobe, Martin wrote: > On 6/30/2018 11:51 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 6/30/2018 8:42 PM, Shobe, Martin wrote: >>> On 6/30/2018 4:41 PM, WM wrote: >>>> Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 21:59:49 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>>> On 6/30/2018 9:38 AM, WM wrote: >>>>>> Am Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 02:40:20 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: >>>>>>> On 6/29/2018 9:01 AM, transfinity01@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Now if I were to conclude from the fact that it differs from >>>>>>> every entry in the list that it differs from the list, I would be >>>>>>> making >>>>>>> the same mistake as you do above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it is the same argument. But it is Cantor's argument. >>>>> >>>>> In the argument that you snipped, the conclusion was that it differs >>>>> from each of the elements of the list. That does not make the mistake >>>>> that you made. >>>> >>>> It does the same as I did since each element is at a finite place. >>> >>> Don't lie. You also applied the result to something that wasn't an >>> element. The sequence is not one of its elements, yet you applied the >>> result to it. >> >> Not sure if it relates WM, a sequence can be an element of another >> sequence. > > I'm aware of that and it doesn't apply here. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | WM <wolfgang.mueckenheim@hs-augsburg.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-07-01 04:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eecfee47-0af0-4a6c-b542-e90bbb2b038e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416907 |
Am Sonntag, 1. Juli 2018 05:42:15 UTC+2 schrieb Shobe, Martin: > You think the list is the diagonal of the list? I know that Cantor considers only digits at finite places and concludes that the infinite antidiagonal differs from the infinite list. He says: wenn irgendeine bestimmte Sukzession definierter ganzer realer Zahlen vorliegt, von denen keine größte existiert, auf Grund dieses zweiten Erzeugungsprinzips eine neue Zahl geschaffen wird, If there is an infinite succession of numbers without a greatest one, then a new number is created. This is applied over and over again. Conclusion from the finite to the infinite. Regards, WM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.math
csiph-web