Skip to main content

Seeing That "French Grand Chef" Is Still Rather Humble, Let Us Educate the Left One More Time!

Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán

This ID always gives proper answers and engages in serious discussion with those who genuinely study academic problems. For example, this time "French Grand Chef" has been rather humble, so this ID will address their question. They posted the following reply under this ID's thread: Which of the two hypotheses is wrong?
[French Grand Chef] posted at 2006-08-07 10:49:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypothesis 1: All human thought and all laws of motion can be represented by binary numbers.
Hypothesis 2: Then we arrange these binary numbers that represent all human thought and laws of motion.
Given these two hypotheses, if a contradiction is derived, which hypothesis is wrong?
I think your proof process can only prove non-enumerability. That is, Hypothesis 2 is wrong.

This reply proves that this person at least knows a bit more than the "Mathematics" ID -- at least understanding proof by contradiction. First, Hypothesis 2 was already implicitly assumed in netizen Mathematics' own argument, because the process of inputting data into a computer is itself a process of ordering. This should not be hard to understand. We can line up these binary numbers supposedly representing thoughts in the order they are input into the computer. Of course, if there are many computers, the ordering method is similarly simple and essentially no different from the single-computer case. This can be treated as an exercise for the left to practice!

Furthermore, since we are discussing human thoughts, and human existence is finite -- at minimum, once the universe is destroyed, humans will no longer exist -- and the current universe's existence is finite in time, it is easy to see that the total number of human thoughts is actually finite as well. For instance, if one thought is produced every 0.1 seconds, and according to the principles of quantum mechanics, the time interval between thought production cannot be infinitely short, then it is readily apparent that the total number of human thoughts is actually finite. And in the finite case, the diagonal method works just as well.

The above two reasons are already sufficient to prove that Hypothesis 2 holds. Therefore, if any hypothesis is wrong, it can only be Hypothesis 1. Of course, even if we assume netizen Mathematics' argument did not implicitly contain Hypothesis 2, and even if humanity could somehow transcend the universe and live infinitely, then if the left knew a bit more -- knew something about transfinite numbers and the generalization of the diagonal method -- they would know that Hypothesis 2 is not necessary. Whether or not Hypothesis 2 holds does not affect the conclusion of the proof. On this point, if the left can remain humble, they can find a book and study it themselves. I won't elaborate further here.