Take any reasonable interpretration of the terms you can to get an answer where possible.
If there is ambiguity, state all possible interpretations and answer each.

"A random real number will be on a computables list to an infinite number of digits" True / False / Other
____

"All finite subsequences of a random real number will be on a computables list" True / False / Other
____

"All digits of a random real number are covered in all finite subsequences of that number" True / False / Other
____

"If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on it to an infinite number
of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
____

How many digits of a random sequence have the prefix up to that digit
occur on a member of any complete computable number list?

Random Sequence =
<593738..........................................................................................>
|<--- How many of these digits satisfy the question? --->|

UTM(row, col) mod 10
1 <23424............>
2 <54434............>
3 <59373.............>
....

____

* remember : how many digits (of the random sequeence), not how many digits (fit on each row of UTM).

Herc
--
Have you now or have you ever been a member of the antidisestablishmentarianism party?

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 19:38:06 -0800

Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is whether
or not you understand it.

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:14:17 -0800

|-|erc wrote:
> wrote in message > |-|erc wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > > > ->
> > > > > -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number
can
> > be
> > > > on
> > > > > -it to an infinite number
> > > > > -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False /
Other
> > > > > -> ____
> > > > > ->
> > > > >
> > > > > -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k,
> > there is
> > > > a
> > > > > -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it
to
> > k
> > > > > -digits, yet r is not on the list.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Its not in English.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it is.
> > >
> > > Show me a dictionary with the words 'r' and 'k'.
> > >
> > > Herc
> >
> > Don't be ridiculous. Algebraic symbolism is part of English. Are
you
> > seriously telling me you can't understand what I'm saying?
> >
>
> No English professor on the planet will call your writing
grammatically correct.
>
> Herc

Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is whether
or not you understand it.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:19:38 +1000

wrote in
>
> |-|erc wrote:
> > wrote in message > |-|erc wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > > > ->
> > > > > > -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number
> can
> > > be
> > > > > on
> > > > > > -it to an infinite number
> > > > > > -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False /
> Other
> > > > > > -> ____
> > > > > > ->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k,
> > > there is
> > > > > a
> > > > > > -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it
> to
> > > k
> > > > > > -digits, yet r is not on the list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its not in English.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it is.
> > > >
> > > > Show me a dictionary with the words 'r' and 'k'.
> > > >
> > > > Herc
> > >
> > > Don't be ridiculous. Algebraic symbolism is part of English. Are
> you
> > > seriously telling me you can't understand what I'm saying?
> > >
> >
> > No English professor on the planet will call your writing
> grammatically correct.
> >
> > Herc
>
> Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is whether
> or not you understand it.
>

I have told you explicitly FOUR TIMES NOW, the issue is not me understanding your preschool
level mathematical drivel. The issue is getting the SIMPLEST answer to SIMPLE questions and
assertions about the

oo nature of sequences' representatation on computable lists.

I can say

Q HOW MANY NATURALS ARE THERE?

A for every k, there is a natural.

YYYYEEEESSSSS its correct, but its shit.

Herc

From:	abe.buckingham at gmail.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	20 Jan 2005 09:45:13 -0800

And why wouldn't we swallow it? It's a made up object that obeys
certain properties that we define and then build from logically just
like all of math. Whatever philosophical reasons you have for
rejecting them aren't any less convincing. If you think a contradiction
exists, it's your responsibility to prove it but just because you don't
like the idea doesn't mean it's not a valid way to math. Frankly I'd
take that load of bollocks over your ill-defined drivel any day even if
it had a contradiction, because it's at least articulate. When you will
realize that math is about one thing - convincing your peers. That's
why the rely so heavily on logic and rules of inference which are
widely agreed upon, and the fact that you can't get anyone to believe
your claims is a pretty solid reason for rejecting them.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:30:01 +1000

> And why wouldn't we swallow it? It's a made up object that obeys
> certain properties that we define and then build from logically just
> like all of math. Whatever philosophical reasons you have for
> rejecting them aren't any less convincing. If you think a contradiction
> exists, it's your responsibility to prove it but just because you don't
> like the idea doesn't mean it's not a valid way to math. Frankly I'd
> take that load of bollocks over your ill-defined drivel any day even if
> it had a contradiction, because it's at least articulate. When you will
> realize that math is about one thing - convincing your peers. That's
> why the rely so heavily on logic and rules of inference which are
> widely agreed upon, and the fact that you can't get anyone to believe
> your claims is a pretty solid reason for rejecting them.
>

rubbish. assume all oo reals on a list.

ignore the assumption and construct a new real "different to every other real".

by definition , there are oo + 1 reals.

therefore hyperinfinity exists.

that's your articulate proof. its the century of gooey over it you admire not the
existance of a hyperinfinity.

Infinite people flips coins infinite times each.
take the diagonal, invert it.
a new sequence.

just ignore the fact that sequence has been flipped to oo number of coin tosses.

Herc

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:24:25 -0800

|-|erc wrote:
> wrote in message
> >
> > |-|erc wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > > > Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is
> > whether
> > > > or not you understand it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > liar
> > >
> > > Herc
> >
> > What do you say I'm lying about? How about telling me whether you
> > understand what I'm saying or not. That might move the discussion
> > forward.
> >
>
> When you are corrected, you ignore it, retaliate, call it ridiculous,
change the topic,
> and try to skip over it.

In what sense did I change the topic? You mean I changed it from the
topic of how bad my grammar was? Is this what you're accusing me of
evading?

You weren't correcting me, you were just being abusive. If you think
you can point out a mistake in my grammar, go ahead. It's hardly
relevant though, is it?

> I don't want to move the discussion, quite the opposite, I
> want the fact oo digits of a sequence get computed in order stated
clearly and
> understood, its a very simple proposition that not 1 of 1,000
sci.maths subscribers
> will admit to, except John Savard.
>

Okay, what exactly is this fact that you want understood? Are you
saying every sequence is computable? Why do you expect people to agree
with this? What arguments do you have to offer in its favour? Are you
aware of the proof that not every sequence is computable? What do you
have to say about that?

> When the question is HOW MANY DIGITS, the answer is not ANY, its a
quantity.
> "ANY FINITE" is like "not-guilty-criminal", its meaningless.
>
> Herc

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:35:39 +1000

wrote in message
>
> |-|erc wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > >
> > > |-|erc wrote:
> > > > wrote in message
> > > > > Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is
> > > whether
> > > > > or not you understand it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > liar
> > > >
> > > > Herc
> > >
> > > What do you say I'm lying about? How about telling me whether you
> > > understand what I'm saying or not. That might move the discussion
> > > forward.
> > >
> >
> > When you are corrected, you ignore it, retaliate, call it ridiculous,
> change the topic,
> > and try to skip over it.
>
> In what sense did I change the topic? You mean I changed it from the
> topic of how bad my grammar was? Is this what you're accusing me of
> evading?

The topic is getting the assertions into English grammatical propositions.

>
> You weren't correcting me, you were just being abusive. If you think
> you can point out a mistake in my grammar, go ahead. It's hardly
> relevant though, is it?

I told you 'k' and 'r' are not words, hence you are not writing English sentences.

There's no rebuttal to this. You admit your error, support your assertion somehow
or stop posting.

>
> > I don't want to move the discussion, quite the opposite, I
> > want the fact oo digits of a sequence get computed in order stated
> clearly and
> > understood, its a very simple proposition that not 1 of 1,000
> sci.maths subscribers
> > will admit to, except John Savard.
> >
>
> Okay, what exactly is this fact that you want understood? Are you
> saying every sequence is computable? Why do you expect people to agree
> with this? What arguments do you have to offer in its favour? Are you
> aware of the proof that not every sequence is computable? What do you
> have to say about that?

All I'm saying is what amount of the digits of the sequence HAVE PROPERTY XYZ.

Its a simple question about the single sequence, the answer has nothing to do with XYZ.

I don't care HOW the digits are placed, I don't care WHERE the digits are placed, I
don't care how many PER ROW are placed.

sequence <.......................> linear object

list
<
<............>
<............>
<............>
>
compound object.

How many digits of the linear object have property XYZ?

You have 2 choices, finite or infinite.

"any finite amount per computable number" is NOT HALF WAY.

THERE IS NO INBETWEEN. INFINITE OR FINITE.

HOW MANY DIGITS OF LINEAR OBJECT = INFINTIE | FINITE

NO CLAUSE NO IFS NO BUTS

>
> > When the question is HOW MANY DIGITS, the answer is not ANY, its a
> quantity.
> > "ANY FINITE" is like "not-guilty-criminal", its meaningless.
> >
> > Herc
>

Herc

From:	Lasse
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	19 Jan 2005 23:34:24 -0800

Some advice: stop thinking of the real numbers in terms of their
decimal expansions, it only seems to be confusing you. The decimal
expansion only describes a way (one among many) of describe an
approximation to a real number to arbitrary precision.

Also, you seem to be mixing the issues of uncountability of the reals
and computability questions, which are only slightly related.

You already got answers to your questions, as far as they were
well-defined, so I won't bother going through them. You seem to be
asking: is it possible to write a list of numbers which contains
arbitrarily good approximations to every real number? And the answer is
YES: for example, the rationals.

Topologists would say: the real numbers have a countable dense subset
(such spaces are sometimes called separable). This does NOT mean that
the set of real numbers itself is countable - perhaps this is where you
have a problem of understanding?

The issue of computability is worse: you can easily define a single
number whose decimal expansion is not computable: e.g., let the n-th
digit be 1 if the n-th Turing Machine halts, and 0 otherwise. There is
no program which, given input k, outputs the first k digits of this
number.
Hope this helps,
Lasse
---
(@remove.for.spam.maths.warwick.ac.uk)

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:54:00 +1000

> Hope this helps,
> Lasse

No, that is the biggest load of bollocks in history, I can't believe you all swallow it.

All you have to do is answer the questions properly. That means giving the answer
that was asked for, using suitable meanings for the terms.

If you want to discuss your extremely stupid stance on real numbers, do it by arguing
the true or false value of one of the propositions that I disagree with you on.

Strange you can know everything there is to know and you don't have to even bother
seeing if cardinality theory holds up to inspection. You win both ways! Well done!

Herc

From:	The Ghost In The Machine
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:00:19 GMT

In sci.logic, |-|erc

wrote
on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:54:00 +1000
<3596bpF4ikgt1U1@individual.net>:
>> Hope this helps,
>> Lasse
>
> No, that is the biggest load of bollocks in history, I can't believe you all swallow it.
>
> All you have to do is answer the questions properly.

Define "properly". Are you referring to:

[1] a T/F canvassing methodology that you will later use in a research
project?
[2] T/F according to |-|erc's Special Computability theory?
[3] T/F according to standard math theory?
[4] other?

> That means giving the answer
> that was asked for, using suitable meanings for the terms.
>
> If you want to discuss your extremely stupid stance on real
> numbers, do it by arguing the true or false value of one of
> the propositions that I disagree with you on.
>
> Strange you can know everything there is to know and you don't
> have to even bother seeing if cardinality theory holds up to
> inspection. You win both ways! Well done!
>
> Herc
>

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 19:38:23 -0800

Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is whether
or not you understand it.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:57:38 +1000

wrote in message
> Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is whether
> or not you understand it.
>

liar

Herc

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	22 Jan 2005 15:23:47 -0800

My answers are perfectly comprehensible. When they can be reduced to a
simple "T" or "F", you should be able to figure that out for yourself.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:14:53 +1000

wrote in
> My answers are perfectly comprehensible. When they can be reduced to a
> simple "T" or "F", you should be able to figure that out for yourself.

right, but I can't describe any new propositions as axioms in future
just because *I* said they're true.

Herc

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:11:18 -0800

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 14:12:59 -0800

|-|erc wrote:
> wrote in
> > > right, but I can't describe any new propositions as axioms in
future
> > > just because *I* said they're true.
> > >
> > > Herc
> >
> > I'm not following you. If you want to argue against my position,
just
> > argue against it. If you're misinterpreting me I'll tell you. But I
> > would have thought I was communicating reasonably clearly and there
> > would be hope that you'd be able to understand me.
> >
>
>
>
> ->
> -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be
on
> -it to an infinite number
> -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
> -> ____
> ->
>
> -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k, there is
a
> -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to k
> -digits, yet r is not on the list.
>
>
> Its not in English.
>
>

Yes, it is.

> How FAR can you move the BAR?
>
> |
> <12 | 34567898765432>
> |
> <11 | 1111111111111>
> <12 | 1212121212121>
> <12 | 3123123123123>
> |
>
> THAT PORTION OF THE SEQUENCE IS ON THE LIST TOO.
>
>
>
> How far can you move the bar across a random real and still be
covered in the computables list?
>
> Herc

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:02:07 +1000

wrote in message
> ->
> > -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be
> on
> > -it to an infinite number
> > -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
> > -> ____
> > ->
> >
> > -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k, there is
> a
> > -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to k
> > -digits, yet r is not on the list.
> >
> >
> > Its not in English.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, it is.

Show me a dictionary with the words 'r' and 'k'.

Herc

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:31:06 -0800

|-|erc wrote:

> I have told you explicitly FOUR TIMES NOW, the issue is not me
understanding your preschool
> level mathematical drivel.
You understand it? Great. Want to argue against it?

[rest deleted]

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 20:06:50 -0800

|-|erc wrote:
> wrote in message
> > Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is
whether
> > or not you understand it.
> >
>
> liar
>
> Herc

What do you say I'm lying about? How about telling me whether you
understand what I'm saying or not. That might move the discussion
forward.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:15:25 +1000

wrote in message
>
> |-|erc wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > > Yes they would, and anyway this is irrelevant. The question is
> whether
> > > or not you understand it.
> > >
> >
> > liar
> >
> > Herc
>
> What do you say I'm lying about? How about telling me whether you
> understand what I'm saying or not. That might move the discussion
> forward.
>

When you are corrected, you ignore it, retaliate, call it ridiculous, change the topic,
and try to skip over it. I don't want to move the discussion, quite the opposite, I
want the fact oo digits of a sequence get computed in order stated clearly and
understood, its a very simple proposition that not 1 of 1,000 sci.maths subscribers
will admit to, except John Savard.

When the question is HOW MANY DIGITS, the answer is not ANY, its a quantity.
"ANY FINITE" is like "not-guilty-criminal", its meaningless.

Herc

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	22 Jan 2005 20:29:44 -0800

|-|erc wrote:
> wrote in
> > My answers are perfectly comprehensible. When they can be reduced
to a
> > simple "T" or "F", you should be able to figure that out for
yourself.
>
> right, but I can't describe any new propositions as axioms in future
> just because *I* said they're true.
>
> Herc

I'm not following you. If you want to argue against my position, just
argue against it. If you're misinterpreting me I'll tell you. But I
would have thought I was communicating reasonably clearly and there
would be hope that you'd be able to understand me.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:09:12 +1000

wrote in
> > right, but I can't describe any new propositions as axioms in future
> > just because *I* said they're true.
> >
> > Herc
>
> I'm not following you. If you want to argue against my position, just
> argue against it. If you're misinterpreting me I'll tell you. But I
> would have thought I was communicating reasonably clearly and there
> would be hope that you'd be able to understand me.
>

->
-> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on
-it to an infinite number
-> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
-> ____
->

-A real number r can be such that for each natural number k, there is a
-member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to k
-digits, yet r is not on the list.

Its not in English.

How FAR can you move the BAR?

|
<12 | 34567898765432>
|
<11 | 1111111111111>
<12 | 1212121212121>
<12 | 3123123123123>
|

THAT PORTION OF THE SEQUENCE IS ON THE LIST TOO.

How far can you move the bar across a random real and still be covered in the computables list?

Herc

From:	The Ghost In The Machine
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:01:39 GMT

In sci.logic, |-|erc

wrote
on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:09:12 +1000
<35h4cuF4i1q1nU1@individual.net>:
> wrote in
>> > right, but I can't describe any new propositions as axioms in future
>> > just because *I* said they're true.
>> >
>> > Herc
>>
>> I'm not following you. If you want to argue against my position, just
>> argue against it. If you're misinterpreting me I'll tell you. But I
>> would have thought I was communicating reasonably clearly and there
>> would be hope that you'd be able to understand me.
>>
>
>
>
> ->
> -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on
> -it to an infinite number
> -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
> -> ____
> ->
>
> -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k, there is a
> -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to k
> -digits, yet r is not on the list.
>
>
> Its not in English.
>
>
> How FAR can you move the BAR?
>
> |
> <12 | 34567898765432>
> |
> <11 | 1111111111111>
> <12 | 1212121212121>
> <12 | 3123123123123>
> |

To any finite position.
>
> THAT PORTION OF THE SEQUENCE IS ON THE LIST TOO.
>
>
>
> How far can you move the bar across a random real and
> still be covered in the computables list?

To any finite position.
>
> Herc
>

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:37:41 +1000

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
> > wrote in
> >> > right, but I can't describe any new propositions as axioms in future
> >> > just because *I* said they're true.
> >> >
> >> > Herc
> >>
> >> I'm not following you. If you want to argue against my position, just
> >> argue against it. If you're misinterpreting me I'll tell you. But I
> >> would have thought I was communicating reasonably clearly and there
> >> would be hope that you'd be able to understand me.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ->
> > -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on
> > -it to an infinite number
> > -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
> > -> ____
> > ->
> >
> > -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k, there is a
> > -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to k
> > -digits, yet r is not on the list.
> >
> >
> > Its not in English.
> >
> >
> > How FAR can you move the BAR?
> >
> > |
> > <12 | 34567898765432>
> > |
> > <11 | 1111111111111>
> > <12 | 1212121212121>
> > <12 | 3123123123123>
> > |
>
> To any finite position.
> >
> > THAT PORTION OF THE SEQUENCE IS ON THE LIST TOO.
> >
> >
> >
> > How far can you move the bar across a random real and
> > still be covered in the computables list?
>
> To any finite position.
>

How many digits can you move the bar over?

Herc

From:	The Ghost In The Machine
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 16:00:17 GMT

In sci.logic, |-|erc

wrote
on Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:37:41 +1000
<35hgkaF4lj3jfU1@individual.net>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
>> > wrote in
>> >> > right, but I can't describe any new propositions as axioms in future
>> >> > just because *I* said they're true.
>> >> >
>> >> > Herc
>> >>
>> >> I'm not following you. If you want to argue against my position, just
>> >> argue against it. If you're misinterpreting me I'll tell you. But I
>> >> would have thought I was communicating reasonably clearly and there
>> >> would be hope that you'd be able to understand me.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ->
>> > -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on
>> > -it to an infinite number
>> > -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
>> > -> ____
>> > ->
>> >
>> > -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k, there is a
>> > -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to k
>> > -digits, yet r is not on the list.
>> >
>> >
>> > Its not in English.
>> >
>> >
>> > How FAR can you move the BAR?
>> >
>> > |
>> > <12 | 34567898765432>
>> > |
>> > <11 | 1111111111111>
>> > <12 | 1212121212121>
>> > <12 | 3123123123123>
>> > |
>>
>> To any finite position.
>> >
>> > THAT PORTION OF THE SEQUENCE IS ON THE LIST TOO.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > How far can you move the bar across a random real and
>> > still be covered in the computables list?
>>
>> To any finite position.
>>
>
> How many digits can you move the bar over?

To any finite position. (+oo is not finite.)
>
> Herc
>

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:04:40 +1000

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
> >> > How FAR can you move the BAR?
> >> >
> >> > |
> >> > <12 | 34567898765432>
> >> > |
> >> > <11 | 1111111111111>
> >> > <12 | 1212121212121>
> >> > <12 | 3123123123123>
> >> > |
> >>
> >> To any finite position.
> >> >
> >> > THAT PORTION OF THE SEQUENCE IS ON THE LIST TOO.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > How far can you move the bar across a random real and
> >> > still be covered in the computables list?
> >>
> >> To any finite position.
> >>
> >
> > How many digits can you move the bar over?
>
> To any finite position. (+oo is not finite.)

The answer to HOW MANY is a quantity.

<1 2 3 4 5 6 ..>

How many digits are in N that (have a digit after them)?

Remember 'where true' in SQL.

Herc

From:	The Ghost In The Machine
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:00:17 GMT

In sci.logic, |-|erc

wrote
on Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:04:40 +1000
<35iscvF4mr6q7U1@individual.net>:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
>> >> > How FAR can you move the BAR?
>> >> >
>> >> > |
>> >> > <12 | 34567898765432>
>> >> > |
>> >> > <11 | 1111111111111>
>> >> > <12 | 1212121212121>
>> >> > <12 | 3123123123123>
>> >> > |
>> >>
>> >> To any finite position.
>> >> >
>> >> > THAT PORTION OF THE SEQUENCE IS ON THE LIST TOO.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > How far can you move the bar across a random real and
>> >> > still be covered in the computables list?
>> >>
>> >> To any finite position.
>> >>
>> >
>> > How many digits can you move the bar over?
>>
>> To any finite position. (+oo is not finite.)
>
>
> The answer to HOW MANY is a quantity.
>
> <1 2 3 4 5 6 ..>
>
> How many digits are in N that (have a digit after them)?
>
> Remember 'where true' in SQL.
>
> Herc
>

For every finite answer N I can come up with an answer N+1.
Therefore, "HOW MANY?" cannot be answered except by +oo,
with the stipulation that no one can ever reach +oo by
mere counting, but by a leap in logic; notations such
as "+oo - 1" make no sense.

Leap too hard and one falls into the abyss. :-)

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:04:31 +1000

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
> >> >> > How FAR can you move the BAR?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > |
> >> >> > <12 | 34567898765432>
> >> >> > |
> >> >> > <11 | 1111111111111>
> >> >> > <12 | 1212121212121>
> >> >> > <12 | 3123123123123>
> >> >> > |
> >> >>
> >> >> To any finite position.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > THAT PORTION OF THE SEQUENCE IS ON THE LIST TOO.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How far can you move the bar across a random real and
> >> >> > still be covered in the computables list?
> >> >>
> >> >> To any finite position.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > How many digits can you move the bar over?
> >>
> >> To any finite position. (+oo is not finite.)

Q1 Where can you move the bar to?

Q2 How many digits can you move the bar over?

> >
> >
> > The answer to HOW MANY is a quantity.
> >
> > <1 2 3 4 5 6 ..>
> >
> > How many digits are in N that (have a digit after them)?
> >
> > Remember 'where true' in SQL.
> >
> > Herc
> >
>
> For every finite answer N I can come up with an answer N+1.
> Therefore, "HOW MANY?" cannot be answered except by +oo,
> with the stipulation that no one can ever reach +oo by
> mere counting, but by a leap in logic; notations such
> as "+oo - 1" make no sense.
>
> Leap too hard and one falls into the abyss. :-)
>

The answer to "How many numbers are in N?" is not "any finite number".

You are not being smart, clever, correct, whimsical, consise, convincing or entertaining.
I won't list the adjectives you are.

Herc

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	19 Jan 2005 21:27:21 -0800

|-|erc wrote:
> Take any reasonable interpretration of the terms you can to get an
answer where possible.
> If there is ambiguity, state all possible interpretations and answer
each.
>
>
>
> "A random real number will be on a computables list to an infinite
number of digits" True / False / Other
> ____
>

I'm assuming your probability space is [0,1] with Lebesgue measure.

There is probability 0 that a random real from that space will be
computable.

>
> "All finite subsequences of a random real number will be on a
computables list" True / False / Other
> ____
>

True, every finite decimal is computable.

>
> "All digits of a random real number are covered in all finite
subsequences of that number" True / False / Other
> ____
>

Don't really know what this means. It's true that the finite segments
of a real number determine what that real number is.

>
> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on
it to an infinite number
> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
> ____
>

A real number r can be such that for each natural number k, there is a
member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to k
digits, yet r is not on the list.

>
> How many digits of a random sequence have the prefix up to that digit
> occur on a member of any complete computable number list?
>
> Random Sequence =
>
<593738..........................................................................................>
> |<--- How many of these digits satisfy the question? --->|
>

Every finite segment of a real will appear on the list of computables.

> UTM(row, col) mod 10
> 1 <23424............>
> 2 <54434............>
> 3 <59373.............>
> ...
>
> ____
>
> * remember : how many digits (of the random sequeence), not how many
digits (fit on each row of UTM).
>
> Herc
> --
> Have you now or have you ever been a member of the
antidisestablishmentarianism party?

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:13:50 +1000

Right thanks a lot. But I CANNOT USE ANY OF THESE ANSWERS
to make a point in future.

Can you just fill in T or F now that we have your explanations?
* remember : how many digits (of the random sequeence), not how many digits (for each row).

"A random real number will be on a computables list to an infinite number of digits" True / False / Other
____

"All finite subsequences of a random real number will be on a computables list" True / False / Other
____

"All digits of a random real number are covered in all finite subsequences of that number" True / False / Other
____

"If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on it to an infinite number
of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
____

How many digits of a random sequence have the prefix up to that digit
occur on a member of any complete computable number list?

Random Sequence =
<593738..........................................................................................>
|<--- How many of these digits satisfy the question? --->|

UTM(row, col) mod 10
1 <23424............>
2 <54434............>
3 <59373.............>
....

____

From:	rupertmccallum at yahoo.com
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	23 Jan 2005 19:16:14 -0800

|-|erc wrote:
> wrote in message
> > ->
> > > -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can
be
> > on
> > > -it to an infinite number
> > > -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
> > > -> ____
> > > ->
> > >
> > > -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k,
there is
> > a
> > > -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to
k
> > > -digits, yet r is not on the list.
> > >
> > >
> > > Its not in English.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it is.
>
> Show me a dictionary with the words 'r' and 'k'.
>
> Herc

Don't be ridiculous. Algebraic symbolism is part of English. Are you
seriously telling me you can't understand what I'm saying?

From:	\|-\|erc
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:30:16 +1000

wrote in message > |-|erc wrote:
> > wrote in message
> > > ->
> > > > -> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can
> be
> > > on
> > > > -it to an infinite number
> > > > -> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other
> > > > -> ____
> > > > ->
> > > >
> > > > -A real number r can be such that for each natural number k,
> there is
> > > a
> > > > -member of the list of computables such that r agrees with it to
> k
> > > > -digits, yet r is not on the list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Its not in English.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, it is.
> >
> > Show me a dictionary with the words 'r' and 'k'.
> >
> > Herc
>
> Don't be ridiculous. Algebraic symbolism is part of English. Are you
> seriously telling me you can't understand what I'm saying?
>

No English professor on the planet will call your writing grammatically correct.

Herc

From:	Will Twentyman
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:56:35 -0500

Note: the word "random" is meaningless in these discussions.
"Arbitrary" is being substituted as part of the interpretations.

|-|erc wrote:

> Take any reasonable interpretration of the terms you can to get an answer where possible.
> If there is ambiguity, state all possible interpretations and answer each.
>
> "A random real number will be on a computables list to an infinite number of digits" True / False / Other

1) "An arbitrary real number will be on the list of computables" Other:
maybe
2) "Any prefix of an arbitrary real number will be on the list of
computables" True.

> ____
>
>
> "All finite subsequences of a random real number will be on a computables list" True / False / Other

"All finite subsequences of an arbitrary real number will be on the list
of computables" True.

> ____
>
>
> "All digits of a random real number are covered in all finite subsequences of that number" True / False / Other

1) "A list of all prefixes of an arbitrary real number can be
constructed" True
2) "A list of all finite subsequences of an arbitrary real number can be
constructed" True

> ____
>
>
> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can be on it to an infinite number
> of digits, and yet not be on the list" True / False / Other

As stated: false. The real either is or is not on the list, but not both.

1) "If you have the list of computables, an arbitrary real number can
have all of its finite prefixes on the list, and yet not be on the list"
True

> ____
>
>
> How many digits of a random sequence have the prefix up to that digit
> occur on a member of any complete computable number list?

aleph_0 (all of the finite prefixes are on the list)

>
> Random Sequence =
> <593738..........................................................................................>
> |<--- How many of these digits satisfy the question? --->|
>
> UTM(row, col) mod 10
> 1 <23424............>
> 2 <54434............>
> 3 <59373.............>
> ...
>
> ____
>
> * remember : how many digits (of the random sequeence), not how many digits (fit on each row of UTM).

--
Will Twentyman
email: wtwentyman at copper dot net

From:	The Ghost In The Machine
Subject:	Re: ***** TRY THESE SCI.MATH ********
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:00:19 GMT

In sci.logic, |-|erc

wrote
on Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:11:30 +1000
<358paiF4ki694U1@individual.net>:
> Take any reasonable interpretration of the terms you can to get an answer where possible.
> If there is ambiguity, state all possible interpretations and answer each.
>
>
>
> "A random real number will be on a computables list to an infinite number of digits" True / False / Other

Probability 0.00%.

> ____
>
>
> "All finite subsequences of a random real number will be on a computables list" True / False / Other

Probability 0.00%.

> ____
>
>
> "All digits of a random real number are covered in all finite subsequences of that number" True / False / Other

Reformulate.

> ____
>
>
> "If you have the list of computables, a random real number can
> be on it to an infinite number of digits, and yet not be on
> he list" True / False / Other

True as phrased. (Example: S_3 and 1/3, TX_10 and any q whose
denominator has a prime factor other than 2 or 5)

> ____
>
>
> How many digits of a random sequence have the prefix up to that digit
> occur on a member of any complete computable number list?
>
> Random Sequence =
> <593738..........................................................................................>
> |<--- How many of these digits satisfy the question? --->|
>
> UTM(row, col) mod 10
> 1 <23424............>
> 2 <54434............>
> 3 <59373.............>
> ...

If you're referring to RS(d) == UTM(d,d) mod 10, the probability
is 0.00% again.

If you're referring to RS(d) in {UTM(row, col) mod 10: row, col in N}
the probability is 1.00%.

Please clarify your question.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.