This Just In- The Stupidity Nevers Ends

-
This just in:

The set of non-negative integers, {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,...} does NOT contain the set of non-negative even integers, {2,4,6,8,10,...} AND have the positive odd integers left unmatched.

For some reason it is NOT correct to use the naturally derived alignment, ie exact matching of numbers, and instead an artificially constructed, ie contrived, alignment, which transforms all members into generic elements, is preferred. Yet no one can why nor what good that does.

Are all mathematicians really that stupid to buy into that?

Really??

Infinte Sets of Transformers!

-
Finally, I get it- well actually I had already been down that path, but here I am again.

Sets' memebers, also know as elements, are transformers. Sure they have one identity in the set but when comparing two sets the elements can be transformed, oranges can be apples, even numbers can become odd numbers and some can remain even! A 2 becomes a 1. A 4 becomes a 2- fucking TRANSFORMERS!

Cantor was way ahead of his time- more so than anyone could have thought. 19th century transformers. Optimus Prime would be proud.

So with the transformer axiom {2,4,6,8,...} does have the same cardinality as {1,2,3,4,...} because the {2,4,6,8,...} can be transformed into {1,2,3,4,...}. And everyone can see that {1,2,3,4,...} = {1,2,3,4,...}.

So I am down with all of that! Just don't tell me that you are comparing the cardinality of the set of non-negative inetgers to the set of non-negative even integers. That would be a lie.

A Tale of Two Sets

-
Given 2 sets, A and B, if A contains all of the members of B AND has members B does not, A's cardinality has to be greater than B's.

And the predicted unsupported and cowardly response of "Joe doesn't understand infinity", is duly noted.

Let the flailing begin...

keiths Still Proud to be an Ignorant Asshole

-
keiths, just shut up. Obviously you are just a drooling moron.

You insist that {1,2,3,…} is twice as large as {2,4,6,…}. If so, then it should be impossible to set up a one-to-one correspondence between them, because the smaller set should run out of elements before the larger one does.

LoL! Just cuz you say so! No keiths. The first set will have 2x the elements as the second set FOREVER- for infinity.

Yet the mapping F(n) = 2n works just fine, with neither set running out of elements. For every n in {1,2,3,…} there is a 2n in {2,4,6,…}. No leftovers.

LoL! Your 2n "mapping" proves my claim you moron. If the first set was not twice as large as the second then you could not use 2n. The fact that it is 2x larger is exemplified by 2n.

Let A = all non-negative positive even integers

Let B = all positive odd integers

Let C = all non-negative integers

It is obvious that A + B = C

It is also obvious that neither A nor B = 0. And the equation proves that a does not = C and B does not = C. Yet Cantor sez A=B=C, and you morons bought it!

If cardinality refers to the number of elements in a set, and we add elements to a set, how can the cardinality stay the same?

For Elizabeth Liddle- How to Falsify Any Given Design Inference

-
Lizzie Liddle just cannot grasp reality. She sez:

That’s not because there aren’t perfectly good ways of inferring Design (there are), but because by refusing to make any specific Design-based predictions, Dembski’s hypothesis remains (let the irony not be missed) unfalsifable.

LoL! There aren't any chance-based predictions, Lizzie. There aren't any predictions borne from accumulations of genetic accidents, lizzie. But that doesn't stop assholes like you from declaring Darwinism/ evolutionism is science.

But I digress. The way to falsify any given design inference is by demonstrating chance and necessity are up to the task- ie can produce the pattern/ structure/ object in question.

ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):

1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

There you have it. If you weren't so scientifically ignorant, you would have known how to falsify ID.

keiths, STILL a Lying Piece-of-Shit Asshole

-
keiths is a fucking liar and coward. He is too afraid to come here even though my blog is open to him. Now he spews more lies and flase accusations:

Joe,

You are making the same mistakes again and again.

Fuck you. YOU are a liar and a moron.

And as I said one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- always and forever, for infinity even.

 

“Always” means “at every point in time”. Every point in time is finite. Infinity is not a point.

Every point in time FOREVER. Infinity is a journey you ignorant ass.

At every finite point in time, the Joe Train will have picked up roughly twice as many natural numbers as positive even integers. So what? You can’t generalize that result to infinity, because infinity is not a point. The train will never reach it.

AGAIN, one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- for INFINITY you dickless wonder.

You also have some very odd ideas about time and sets.

Coming from you that is meaningless drivel.

You seem to think that finite sets, if they are growing and will never stop growing, are already infinite.

Nope. That thought never crossed my mind. YOU are just a strawman creating coward.

You also seem unable to think about infinite sets in non-temporal terms.

LoL! YOU seem to think that your lies and false accusations actually mean something.

 

 

 

  The set of natural numbers is static, Joe. All of the numbers are already there. The set is not growing, and there is no “current largest element” in it.

olegt said that infinity is a journey. Obvioulsy you disagree with him and every other knowledgeable mathematician. Perhaps you should learn what infinity is. It ain't a destination, it's a journey.

And for FSM’s sake, set theory is a branch of mathematics, not physics.

LoL! That is your "argument"?

Cantor’s ignorance of relativity does not invalidate his work in the slightest, except in your fevered imagination.

Cantor's "work" wrt infinite and countable sets is total useless nonsense.

Elizabeth Liddle, So Stupid it Hurts

-
Poor old Lizzie Liddle, clueles until the end. Lizzie sez:

It doesn’t matter how “consistent” Dembski has been in his assertion that Design detection requires “careful investigation to identify the relevant chance hypothesis”. Unless Dembski can actually compute the probability distribution under the null that some relevant chance hypothesis is true, he has no way to reject it.

You stupid fuck! YOU or someone from your position needs to show that it even deserves a place at the probability table.

IOW no one can even demonstrate any "relevant chance hypothesis" wrt the OoL nor the evolution of any biological system or subsystem.

You evoTARDs are so fucking stupid that you don't even grasp that simple fact.
That is the real elephant in the room, Lizzie, you clueless loser.

And keiths proves he is still a cluless fuck:

It’s ironic that ID proponents are always demanding mutation-by-mutation accounts of how this or that biological feature evolved, because that is the level of detail they must provide in order to justify the values they assign to P(T|H).

Umm, dumbass, it is your position making the claim that accumulations of random mutations can do this or that. Therefor the onus is on you to demonstrate such a thing. IOW don't blame us because your position is writing checks it cannot cash.

It’s even worse for them, in fact, because P(T|H) must encompass all possible evolutionary pathways to a given endpoint.

AGAIN, it is up to you to show that your position even deserves a place at the probability table. And stop blaming us because you are unable to do so.

Also it is NOT about "evolutionary pathways"- that is just cowardly equivocation. It is all about blind and undirected chemical processes being able to produce something. And to date you can't even muster a testable hypothesis for such a scenario.

The End of Infinity?

-
Yup, that's the big question. By definition infinity goes on forever, meaning there isn't any end.

However infinity is just a mental construct and doesn't exist outside of our minds. That means it will end, ie cease to exist when agencies capable of thinking of the concept cease to exist.

Infinity will come to an end...

keiths, Total Moron

-
Give up keiths, you are nothing but a lowlife moron. Now keiths sez:

we have asserted that the cardinality of a set does not depend on the identity of its elements — only on their numerosity. 

Umm the numerosity depends on their identity on the number line.

To Joe, that means that we are claiming that “numbers have no meaning.” 

They don't if you place them in a one-to-one correspondence by rearranging their position on that number line.

Substitute one number for another and the cardinality of a set doesn’t change: {1,2,3} has the same cardinality as {5,6,7}.  

Hey lowlife, we are talking about allegedly infinite sets. Therefor bringing a finite set into the discussion is dishonest.

Then to prove he is an asshole, keiths sez:

So Mr. “I fix things- all kinds of things- mechanical, electrical, electronic and personal” was unable to connect to a website and download some PDFs without outside help? 

LoL! I didn't need any outside help- I did it on my own. Just because people offered to help doesn't mean I needed it.

And keiths continues his cowardly lies:

It has never dawned on Joe that the process of counting — which he wholeheartedly endorses, even for infinite sets — is exactly the sort of thing he says should never be done. 

Your false accusation means nothing. But it does expose you are a liar.

Why? Because it involves setting up a one-to-one correspondence between non-identical elements. 

Counting does NOT require such a thing you lowlife moron. And not only that Jerad now agrees with me!

How do you count the elements in {5, 23, 41, 99, 666}? 

By counting them, asshole. Again with the finite set as if your deception and dishoesty mean something.

And not to be outdone on the TARD, Richie the coward, chimes in:

If Joe had two beans and one had “15″ pained on it, he’d have 16 beans by Joemath. 

If Richie and keiths had a brain, they would be dangerous. You assholes are pathetic and apparently you are proud of your cowardice.

I dare you two to try the following:

Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

  

Counting- Jerad Finally Admits that I am Right!

-
Yessirree, it took some time but Jerad has finally opened his eyes and mind. I had posted:

Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

To which Jerad responded:

Yup, that is obviously true.

And if that is obvioulsy true then it follows that the set of non-negative integers has a cardinality that is greater than the set of positive even integers.

Thanks Jerad...

Set Theory: Counting is Irrelevant when Counting the Number of Elements?

-
The cardinality of a set refers to the number of elements it contains. A number that is arrived at by counting the elements in the set.

However when confronted with a set that is infinite, ie only ends when we* do, you cannot count them all. So, knowing that infinity is a journey, I said that one can take countably infinite sets and compare them by counting a finite representation of the set, establish a pattern that will also go on for infinity, and then compare those patterns.

For example:

Let set A = {1,2,3,4,...} and set B = {2,4,6,8,...}. Set A has a 2-to-1 advantage over set B in the finite represenation to 10. And that advantage will never change, ie it will always remain, always and forever, for infinity. Therefor set A's cardinality > set B's cardinality.

The difference is in the way I compare sets with the way Cantor does. He treats everything in a set as an arbitrary object, with no value. For Cantor, {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} and {2,4,6,8,10} line up:

{1,2,3,4, 5,  6,7,8,9,10}
{2,4,6,8,10}, with the first 5 elements "matching" and set A's last 5 left unmatched.

In JoeMath those sets would line up:

{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10}
{   2,   4,   6,   8,   10}, with the match being the actual matching number. That is because JoeMath treats the numbers with respect and allows them their place on the number line. Not only that JoeMath says that we actually have to count the members of the sets to figure out the cardinality.

No, Richie, one does not have to count every member. All one has to do is establish a pattern in order to get the relative cardinality- that is one set's cardinality relative to another set's.

One train with two (or more) counters will always count more positive integers than it will positive even integers- always and forever. So why would Cantor say the two sets are equal? It ain't as if the counters are lying...

Assface keiths chimes in:

That’s the problem. Unlike Joe, mathematicians don’t treat numbers with respect.

So 8x7 can be anything? 1-5 can be a positive number? That is what can happen when you don't treat numbers with the respect I said, ie act like keiths and Cantor- numbers have no meaning.

And on another note, no one can download a PDF from a website that they cannot connect to.  Fucking morons...

How cantor Looked for and Found a "One-to-One Corresponce" WRT Countably Infinite Sets

-
How to look for and find a one-to-one corresponce between two (or more) countably infinite sets:

First you look for ... (an elipsis). This elipsis will be inside of the {} and usually after the highest provided digit. Make sure there isn't any digits after the elipsis (more looking). Stack the sets on top of one another- for example

{0,1,2,3,...}
{2,4,6,8,...}

And voila'! You have found the one-to-one correspondence! For those who cannot see it just draw a line connecting the first element of the top set to the first element of the bottom set. Do the same for the remaining elements. Yup keep going for infinity and let me know when you are done. :)

Cantor's is the "frustrated child" methodology. I can hear him now:

Oh my God, thinking about infinity hurts so let's just say if a set is countable as well as infinite then its cardinality will be the same as all other sets that are also countable and infinite. And if a set is uncountable and infinite, then it has a greater cardinality than countable and infinite sets because, well, let's face it, it's uncountable and that hurts more to think about than infinity.