---------------------------------------------------------------------

WHATS MISSING FROM THIS LIST SCI.MATH MORONS?

R1 [0] 00
R2 1 [?] 1
R2 00 [0]

R2 IS THE [LISTED] ANTIDIAGONAL!

On 6/7/2022 8:11 AM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> WHATS MISSING FROM THIS LIST SCI.MATH MORONS?
>

Apostrophe's and they're use's, you blithering buttnozzle.

On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 2:38:40 PM UTC+10, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 7 juni 2022 kl. 17:11:19 UTC+2 skrev Graham Cooper:
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > WHATS MISSING FROM THIS LIST SCI.MATH MORONS?
> >
> >
> > R1 [0] 00
> > R2 1 [?] 1
> > R2 00 [0]
> >
> >
> > R2 IS THE [LISTED] ANTIDIAGONAL!
> You're the idiot here, along with WM, Gabriel, Archimedes and so on :)

Since you cannot answer the question your the idiot.

.. R1 [0] 00
.. R2 1 [?] 1 .........................<-------------------- ANTI-DIAGONAL
.. R2 00 [0]

UNKNOWN DIGIT REALS is obviously a VALID COUNTABLE REAL MODEL.

--------------------------------------------

Compare the ABOVE SIMPLE COUNTABLE REAL LOGIC to your nonsense "proof"

CANTORS PROOF

LET AD_1 =/= R_1_1
LET AD_2 =/= R_2_2

AND SO ON...

THEREFORE

AD_1 =/= R_1_1
AD_2 =/= R_2_2

THAT IS YOUR IDIOTIC PROOF YOU UTTER SPASTIC!

YOU FAIL TO RESPOND IN ANY INTELLIGENT WAY AT ALL

ALL OF YOU SPASTICS

onsdag 8 juni 2022 kl. 08:00:22 UTC+2 skrev Graham Cooper:
> On Wednesday, June 8, 2022 at 2:38:40 PM UTC+10, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 7 juni 2022 kl. 17:11:19 UTC+2 skrev Graham Cooper:
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > WHATS MISSING FROM THIS LIST SCI.MATH MORONS?
> > >
> > >
> > > R1 [0] 00
> > > R2 1 [?] 1
> > > R2 00 [0]
> > >
> > >
> > > R2 IS THE [LISTED] ANTIDIAGONAL!
> > You're the idiot here, along with WM, Gabriel, Archimedes and so on :)
> Since you cannot answer the question your the idiot.
>
>
> . R1 [0] 00
> . R2 1 [?] 1 .........................<-------------------- ANTI-DIAGONAL
> . R2 00 [0]
>
>
> UNKNOWN DIGIT REALS is obviously a VALID COUNTABLE REAL MODEL.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Compare the ABOVE SIMPLE COUNTABLE REAL LOGIC to your nonsense "proof"
>
>
> CANTORS PROOF
>
> LET AD_1 =/= R_1_1
> LET AD_2 =/= R_2_2
>
>
> AND SO ON...
>
>
>
> THEREFORE
>
> AD_1 =/= R_1_1
> AD_2 =/= R_2_2
>
>
>
>
>
>
> THAT IS YOUR IDIOTIC PROOF YOU UTTER SPASTIC!
>
> YOU FAIL TO RESPOND IN ANY INTELLIGENT WAY AT ALL
>
> ALL OF YOU SPASTICS
Nope, there is no "unknown", the digits are what they are, not "Unkonwn" and that is all that matters.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 6:48:43 AM UTC+2, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Nope, there is no "unknown"

There is.

If I define x_0 to be 0.123 we k n o w all the digits of x_1 (in its decimal representation).

If I just state: Let x_1 e {0.123, 0.456, 0.789} the digits of x_1 are (necessarily) _unknown_.

I already told GC that in mathematics we don't write

x_1 = 0.???

in this case, but rather, say,

x_1 = 0.abc

then we can state

a e {1, 4, 7}
b e {2, 5, 8}
c e {3, 6, 9}.

Now let's assume that [x]_n refers to the n-th digit of x e [0, 1] in its decimal representation which does not have an infinite tail of 9s.

Then [x_1]_1 = a, [x_1]_2 = b, [x_1]_3 = c. Unknown or not.

etc. etc.

Hint: "Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." (Bertrand Russell)

:-P

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> WHAT'S MISSING FROM THIS LIST [below]?

0 . 0 1 0 ,

for example?

> R1 0 . 0 0 0
> R2 0 . 1 ? 1
> R3 0 . 0 0 0
>
> R2 IS THE ANTIDIAGONAL!

No, it isn't. Hint:

DIAG = 0 . 0 ? 0 .

ADIAG = 0 . 1 (1-?) 1 .

But R2 = 0. 1 ? 1 .

Hence ADIAG =/= R2, since (1-?) =/= ? with ? in {0, 1}.

Remember, in the context of "decimal numbers" you claimed:

| "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..9"

Hence in the context of "binary numbers" we clearly would have:

| "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..1"

In math terms this means: ? in {0, 1} and hence (1-?) in {0, 1} and (1-?) =/= ?.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:06:23 PM UTC+10, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
> >
> > WHAT'S MISSING FROM THIS LIST [below]?
>
> 0 . 0 1 0 ,
>
> for example?
>
> > R1 0 . 0 0 0
> > R2 0 . 1 ? 1
> > R3 0 . 0 0 0
> >
> > R2 IS THE ANTIDIAGONAL!
>
> No, it isn't. Hint:
>
> DIAG = 0 . 0 ? 0 .
>
> ADIAG = 0 . 1 (1-?) 1 .
>
> But R2 = 0. 1 ? 1 .
>
> Hence ADIAG =/= R2, since (1-?) =/= ? with ? in {0, 1}.
>
> Remember, in the context of "decimal numbers" you claimed:
>
> | "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..9"
>
> Hence in the context of "binary numbers" we clearly would have:
>
> | "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..1"
>
> In math terms this means: ? in {0, 1} and hence (1-?) in {0, 1} and (1-?) =/= ?.

Listen dimwit!

if you CHANGE an unknown value you GET and UNKNOWN VALUE!

Its called REALITY

REALITY + LOGIC = SOUND LOGIC

You could have a 4th token, 0 1 U O

O for OTHER VALUE but you dont get a 1 and you dont get a 0

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:08 AM UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 5:06:23 PM UTC+10, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:11:19 PM UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > > WHAT'S MISSING FROM THIS LIST [below]?
> >
> > 0 . 0 1 0 ,
> >
> > for example?
> >
> > > R1 0 . 0 0 0
> > > R2 0 . 1 ? 1
> > > R3 0 . 0 0 0
> > >
> > > R2 IS THE ANTIDIAGONAL!
> >
> > No, it isn't. Hint:
> >
> > DIAG = 0 . 0 ? 0 .
> >
> > ADIAG = 0 . 1 (1-?) 1 .
> >
> > But R2 = 0. 1 ? 1 .
> >
> > Hence ADIAG =/= R2, since (1-?) =/= ? with ? in {0, 1}.
> >
> > Remember, in the context of "decimal numbers" you claimed:
> >
> > | "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..9"
> >
> > Hence in the context of "binary numbers" we clearly would have:
> >
> > | "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..1"
> >
> > In math terms this means: ? in {0, 1} and hence (1-?) in {0, 1} and (1-?) =/= ?.
> >
> Listen, master:
>
> If you CHANGE an unknown value you GET an UNKNOWN VALUE!

Did anyone claim otherwise, idiot?

Both, ? and (1-?) are unknown digits. Though we d o know that ? in {0, 1} and hence (1-?) in {0, 1} and (1-?) =/= ?.

Got that, dumbo?

Remember, in the context of "decimal numbers" you claimed:

| "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..9"

Hence in the context of "binary numbers" we clearly would have:

| "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..1"

In math terms this means: ? in {0, 1} and hence (1-?) in {0, 1} and (1-?) =/= ?.

SINCE (1-?) = 1 if ? = 0 and (1-?) = 0 if ? = 1.

Get a grip, man.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:08:22 PM UTC+10, Fritz Feldhase wrote:

> In math terms this means: ? in {0, 1} and hence (1-?) in {0, 1} and (1-?) =/= ?.
> SINCE (1-?) = 1 if ? = 0 and (1-?) = 0 if ? = 1.
>
> Get a grip, man.

if a Turing Machine halts TM_3(3) you get 0 or 1

Some real numbers have actual blanks, like the transpose sort of halt values, this is the 2nd time i've posted this

HALT
TM INPUT 1 2 3
1 h l h l
2 h h h h
3 l l ? l l

Look Ma! a LISTED non computable real

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:08:22 AM UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:08 AM UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
> >
> > If you CHANGE an unknown value you GET an UNKNOWN VALUE!
> >
> Did anyone claim otherwise, idiot?

On the other hand, we still have

0 * ? = 0 ,

even if "?" refers to an "unknown digit".

Remember: "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..9".

And for each and every d in {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} we have 0 * d = 0, you know.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:16:49 AM UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> if a Turing Machine <bla>

Yeah whatever.

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 7:19:52 PM UTC+10, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 11:08:22 AM UTC+2, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> > On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 10:51:08 AM UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > > If you CHANGE an unknown value you GET an UNKNOWN VALUE!
> > >
> > Did anyone claim otherwise, idiot?
> On the other hand, we still have
>
> 0 * ? = 0 ,
>
> even if "?" refers to an "unknown digit".
>
> Remember: "An unknown digit [?] can be anything from 0..9".
>
> And for each and every d in {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9} we have 0 * d = 0, you know.

Ahh Cool

but lambda X . 0*X . ?

is equivalent to f()=0

ie its not a FUNCTION_OF ?

works with 0 arguments

On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:05:40 PM UTC+2, Graham Cooper wrote:
>
> but lambda X . 0*X . ?
>
> is equivalent to f()=0

Is it? I don't think so.

Rather to

f = O ,

where "O" denotes "the null function":

O(x) = 0 for all x.

But that's just a guess. Not my field of experience.