User talk:WhatisFGH

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages

Please do not fill up article talk pages with the sort of argument you have recently placed at talk:continuum hypothesis. There is a page, not strictly within guidelines but tolerated, at Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments, where you may post this if you absolutely must. --Trovatore (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You can also use this page for undisturbed theory discussions. Jojalozzo 03:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Proof of ZFCi <=> ZFC+CH

That's the point call Indduction i and strong induction I

Then what I have proved it that ZFCI<=>ZFCi<=>ZFCiCH<=>ZFCCH hence following it back and forth ZFCI<=>ZFCCH Hence If we assume ZFC, and not induction, we have not CH.

Hence ZFCi<=>ZFCI<=>ZFCRH which implies trivially that ZFCi<=>ZFCRH you can just never right down all the maps from R to N and N to R at the same time, but you can approximate them by 1-1 function f_N:I->R and the function f(x)= x and f(x)=-x:R->R and hence I->I invertibaly.

you should probably understand now, thanks for looking :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhatisFGH (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Continuum hypothesis solution

I think the Real numbers are the smallest set, containing the natural numbers, that is countable (by construction) but can never be written down in a list as the order must be chosen randomly else the axiom of choice fails which is a usually a contradiction as it is regularly assumed to be true.

The example is a perpetual choice machine (ie induction and ZFC). Such a machine can not really exist as then it would be a perpetual motion machine. If you assume it's existence and give it infinite memory and infinite time, then it can count out the real numbers using the axiom of choice, and then COUNT those choices in it's infinite memory.

For a more realistic example, assume humanity lives forever, and time is uncountably infinite. Embed the natural numbers into the universe by counting off the people in space time. Then make each person remember 0 or 1 and their number for one moment in space time. Then this is also the real numbers. This is itself a 4 dimensional mapping of N into R and R into N, where four dimensional mappings need infinite time+memory.

These ideas can be estimated in real time though using computer algorithms. This can be used to show that for certain problems p~np given a large enough n. For example, I am currently working with a bio-chemist to classify all 3 dimensional cloud points that arise from natural phenomea.

Any questions please do post.

WhatisFGH (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The crux of the proof is that it doesn't matter where you start counting. Ergo, in ZF we have 0 and 1, wlog, 0:=1, 1:=2 and w(0,1)=3.

You just forget about 0 by making it behave like 2. is n+n=n*n

November 2011

This is your last warning. The next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Continuum hypothesis‎‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jojalozzo 20:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Elegantest Proof that |N|=|R|

Take (0,1)-Q

Write it down in a list like cantors proof. starting at 1.

Take out the one implied transendantal number through cantor diagonalization, label it 0.

now below that write inductively as follows.

-1.a(1,1) -2.a(1,1)a(2,2)

Etc.

Then count forwards horizontally while you count backwards vertically, and add 0.

Then this is a map from (0,1)-Q union Q union one transendental number that is complete.

Unless you just want to use the principal of double counting... herp derp OZRUIT

WhatisFGH (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

A more elegant than #7 proof of CH.

Consider the infinite p-adic space

p5xp6xp7x... etc

where p(5)=11, p(6) = 13 etc.

Embedded all the real numbers between 0 and 1 exclusively as follows.

If X = a(1,1)a(1,2)...

then f(X) = (a(1,1), a(2,2), etc)

Then this map is well definied, it is injective (up to isomorphism class on the representation of X) and it shows that |R|<=|N|

since we already know |N|<=|R| this shows |N|=|R|.

or as I keep repeating... just use the principal of double counting. OZRUIT WhatisFGH (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)