"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4452c391.8162733@netnews.att.net...

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:57:46 -0500, "Nicky" <nospam@nospam.com> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:445178aa.118557429@netnews.att.net...

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 20:14:24 -0500, "Nicky" <nospam@nospam.com> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:445128af.112714092@netnews.att.net...

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:41:51 -0500, "Nicky" <nospam@nospam.com> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:44510b63.110801769@netnews.att.net...

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:05:23 -0500, "Nicky" <nospam@nospam.com> in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4450cfcc.106530829@netnews.att.net...

On the Non Computability of Numbers
~v~~

In order to judge the non computability of numbers we first ask
what
is meant by the computability of numbers and proceed from there to
determine non computability.

The computability of numbers is decided on a framework of
Cartesian
geometry, Cantorian arithmetic, and Turing von Neumann mechanics.
In other words we take straight lines intersecting at right angles
and
uniform subdivisions of this space as computable and determine
that
all things operated on with TvN mechanics within it are computable
numbers and that anything not within the space can not be operated
on with TvN mechanics and thus are not computable numbers.

So now we must ask whether everything represents a computable
number?

no.

Everything doesn't represent a computable number or we must not ask
the question? If the former perhaps you could explain how you know
it?

Read your question, "...everything represents a computable number?"

I don't have to read it since I wrote it.

It is obvious you did not read it after you wrote it.

And it is obvious you didn't read it at all.

What does it mean to you ?

Just what it says.

"....computable numbers aren't computable numbers"
sounds contridictary.

Can you state it more clearly ?

No.

sure you can, replace "computable numbers" with x
Then you get "x aren't x"

amazing post you did.

What is "everything"?

What does it sound like?

say it louder, I can't hear you.

Well you see I used the word "everything" to indicate "everything
except one particular grain of sand".

Then your statements are utter non-sense.

Of course they are.

Glad you agree.

They're just not quite so utter as your nonsense.

I am only pointing out well known Facts to you.

Do you intending to include sand
grain
#
K on beach B
at location C ?

Beats me. What does it sound like?

so you do not know what you are talking about
(sound part -See Above.)

Of course I don't. Why else would I be talking about it? I just happen
to know more about what I'm talking about than you do.

No, you don't. Prove it.

I just did.

no you did not. you have never used the word "prove".

You only exist because I have allow it.

Huh? Perhaps you would care to rephrase that? Assuming you're a native
english speaker. Or maybe a little ESL is in order.

I will allow you to think about that phrase now, "you only exist, because I
allow it."
I have also allowed you to come up with your entire ***** posting, for my
amusement.

When you are done, I will allow you to continue with other things, that I
determine you should do.

For example are space, motion through space and even intelligence
just
so many variations on computable numbers?

no.

Is this something besides an opinion?

Your statement is advanced speculation and fails on the first reading.

That's nice. Do you often include reasons for your opinions?

Since you acknowledged you failed, you now get an F. (you would have
passed
with a D)

Whereas you pass gas with an A. You still haven't posted reasons for
your opinions. You just post more opinions.

Why did you decide to get an F ? You could pass gass with an A too. But
no,
you have decided that failure is your main path, like numbering
"everything". Better get started on that one.

Yeah. It definitely looks like ESL is in order.

Extra Sensory Libations

Try again.

Why?

Why not?

Why?

Because you will learn, and that would be good for you.

Well that's another matter of opinion.

Well, my opinion is you should try to learn as much as you can from others
on the internet in these newsgroups, you will lower your IQ by 20 points.
But that would put you at 40, hmmm..... not that good.

To answer this question we take a sequence of two or more
computable
numbers, for example 01101 and 10011 and ask what lies in between?

01011, 01100, 01101, 01110, 01111, 10000, 10001, 10010

that's trivial

What's trivial?

Answering your minor question about numbering.

What minor question about what?

Where?

Where what?

Where is your numbering ability at? have you started pasting numbers on
things ?

Not yet.

here is a roll of TP, and a extra wide dry erase marker, and a stop watch.

The enumeration of some computable numbers? If so I
agree. If you are referring to something else as trivial I suggest
you
explain what and why.

see above

Why?

Wrong, it is How? How Much?

Not very.

Actually completely. Wrong

So you say. So you don't prove. Another opinion.

no, pure Fact, everyone already knows that.

And
obviously we must in fact have some things which are not
computable
or
we could not have distinct groupings in the sequence. In other
words
there must be something between 01101 and 10011 not computable or
we could not have distinct groups of binary digits.

?

I thought you just said the problem was trivial.

It is, the answer is above, you have my permission to write it down on
a
piece of paper and keep it with you.

Thanks.

On the other hand if we maintain that what lies between computable
groupings and even digits is computable we are then faced with an
impossible situation.

??

????

?? means, what are you talking about ??

And ???? means what are you talking about ????

What are you talking about !!!!

What are you talking about !!!! ????

no, what are *YOU*, talking about what ??

Yeah sure.

"sure" implies acceptance of uncertainty.

Let's say that within the group of binary digits
01101 we ask once again what lies between individual digits.
Obviously
that cannot also be computable or between any combination of
computable digits we will have further computable digits ad
infinitum.

just a scaling problem, trivial.

I see. So where does the scaling problem begin and end exactly?

add a decimal point, no problem.

Why? We're not talking decimals.

Yes we are, and a decimal point is the solution to your problem.

Funny I rather imagined I was talking binary. It's a little hard to
tell what you're talking other than more undemonstrated opinions.

binary also uses the decimal point.

I rather imagined binary uses a binary point.

a dot, one of these "." or a . (several here).....................

you wrongly assumed integer binary.

I did?

yes, 10011 in an integer in binary.

you are unfamiliar with it, google for it.

Why bother when you have google to do your thinking and I have you?

Glad you noticed that, and that you have a lot to learn from me.
Grasshopper, you will know binary math when we get done.

I correct your mistakes for free this time, but don't let it happen again.

I didn't let your mistakes happen the first time.

Errors are hard to admit for some people, do you have this problem?

Scaling only applies to scaled phenomena which computable numbers
are
not since what's between computable numbers aren't computable
numbers.

Add a decimal point.

I never suggested that they are not computable. I suggested you are
not computable. You are however inscrutable.

You are the one that stated "...computable numbers aren't computable
numbers."

Of course I did. I just can't tell where. Perhaps you can point out
the relevant quote. If not you can just go on making up fairy tales.

Sure, check for yourself;
Message-ID: <445128af.112714092@netnews.att.net>

Thanks, sport, but unlike google I prefer not to do your thinking for
you.

not google, netnews via the bastards ATT.

Let me know which one it is, is not.

As soon as you point out the reference in context I'll be happy to
point out which one it is and which one it is not.

See Above

Ditto.

Then they are computable.

I suspect they're computable in any event.

01101 divided by 10011 is what ?

You?

Google for it, it is out there. Bet you did not know that.

And I'll bet all you know is what Google tells you.

what is 10110.01101 ? Can you tell me in base 10, octal or hex ?
(hint: floating point)

Hint: Go ***** yourself.

you can't handle the truth, it is OK, take a deep breath and hold it for 5
min.

Floating point binary blows up your entire OP, and it is your fault, and
google has recorded it.

Therefore we are completely justified in assuming that not
everything
represents a computable number because whatever lies between such
numbers cannot be computable.

you have two systems mixed, reality and discrete numbers.

Really? Then perhaps you'd care to explain the difference in
mechanical terms.

Also analog and digital.

Unintelligent and intelligent? With you as the former and me as the
latter.

you mean lard-der.

I mean fathead.

you are just learning, and it is OK, you will go far.

Au contraire, *****.

Frenchie ? they are all assholes, it is a diet problem with them. Too much
red wine all day long.

But learn about
floating point representations in various number systems first, it will
spair you from numbering "everything" and then have to go back and number
the things you missed in between.

Gee. I may be mistaken here but I seem to recollect programming
decimal/binary floating point conversions in ASSEMBLER before
you were born.

Wasn't assembly fun! I wrote a complier for assembly on (yes) CARDS, long
long ago.

those were the fun days, and the punch card machines, run it on the
mainframe,
no more of that now.

And furthermore we are completely
justified in assuming computable numbers merely represent only a
mechanical subset of whatever lies between computable numbers.

whatever

I couldn't agree more.

~v~~

A good learning lesson for you. Try harder next time.

Whereas you'll still just be trying all the time.