Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, May 23, 2013

A Lesson in Stupidity From KeithS

-
What a total dipshit this asshole is. Keiths has a "challenge for me:

1. Take any set A of integers. A has a cardinality. Leave A alone for five minutes without adding or removing any elements. Has A’s cardinality changed?

No

2. Take any set B of integers. B has a cardinality. Add 1 to each of the elements of B without adding or removing any elements. Has B’s cardinality changed?
Impossible.

3. Take any set C of integers. C has a cardinality. Multiply each element of C by 17 without adding or removing any elements. Has C’s cardinality changed?

Impossible

4. Take the set {0,1,2,3,…}. It has a cardinality. Add 1 to each of its elements without adding or removing any elements. You’ll obtain {1,2,3,4,…}. Has the cardinality changed?
Yes.

5. Take the set {0,1,2,3,…}. It has a cardinality. Multiply each element by 17 without adding or removing any elements. You’ll obtain {0,17,34,51,…}. Has the cardinality changed?
Yes

6. Flounder about uselessly, trying to explain why your method says that the cardinality changes in scenarios 4 and 5.

You stupid fuck I have already explained it. And there wasn't any floudering about uselessly, except by you and your ilk.

Then keiths sez:

Umm, Joe — you haven’t specified the speed of each train, or whether it’s constant, or the distance between “markers” on each number line, and whether it’s constant, so you can’t conclude that Einstein 1′s count is greater than Einstein 2′s at any particular point in time.

Dumbass, I am tryin g to make everything equal. Equal starting points wrt the 0 reference, same speeds and obvioulsy the markers would be mirror images on both number lines.

However, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the trains always travel at the same finite speed and that the distance between markers on Einstein 2′s number line is constant and twice that of Einstein 1′s. Then Einstein 1 will accumulate marks twice as fast as Einstein 2.
OK

Here’s where you screw up: you assume that infinity is just a really big finite number, and that if Einstein 1 has accumulated more marks at every finite point in time, then he will also have more marks “at infinity”. But infinity is not a point, Joe. The Einsteins, traveling at finite speed, will never reach infinity.

Nope. I never made such an assumption and you are a fucking asshole for making unwarranted assumptions about what I think. I know they will never reach infinity. However they will be accumulating things for their sets along the way. Einstein 1 will be collecting twice as many as Einstein 2- FOREVER, dumbass.

Get it through your head, Joe: infinity is not just a big finite number. It is fundamentally, qualitatively different. It violates some of our intuitions.
YOU violate infinity with your very finite mind.
 
You are clinging to an intuition that has been shown to be wrong. It’s time to take the next step toward intellectual maturity and let go. 

Fuck you. No one has shown me to be wrong. Heck you are so fucking stupid taht you can't even grasp my simple concept.

KeithS, dipshit of the year, and it's only May...

34 Comments:

  • At 7:48 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Bwahahahahaha. You've not comprehended why you're not wrong, the example shows why, Chubs.

     
  • At 7:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, it doesn't. And your bald assertion doesn't make it so you fucking loser coward.

     
  • At 7:57 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    work through the above with {0,1,2,3,...} show the cardinality of each step, fatboy.

     
  • At 7:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Work through the above what?

    Try responding to what I post as opposed to being an obtuse ass.

     
  • At 8:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    KeithS' example. Wow. You'd take the award for being slow.. but you'd never get there to collect it.

     
  • At 8:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Keiths' example is total bullshit you moron. Again read what I posted and try to respond to it.

    Talk about being slow, YOU can't even follow two lines going in opposite directions!

     
  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So you refuse to test your 'maths?'. How very ID!

     
  • At 8:06 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Take set {0,1,2,3,...} and add 1 to each element.

    That would mean that I have to remove the 0, yet keiths sez without adding or removing any elements.

     
  • At 8:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    My math is already tested, and it passed.

     
  • At 8:07 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    0 was the first element in the set. Does the set still have a first element?

     
  • At 8:09 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "My math is already tested, and it passed"

    who tested it?
    who passed it?
    What were their credentials in mathematics?

     
  • At 8:10 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes the set still has a first element but it is no longer 0, meaning I removed an element from the set. 0 is no longer there. It can no longer be counted.

     
  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You assholes have been testing it you moron. And there aren't any inconsistencies nor any contradictions.

    Dumbass

     
  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    An element is a member of a set. 0 was a member, ie an element, that had to be removed

     
  • At 8:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Aren't they all removed them, having been subjected to a uniform procedure? Does JoeMath(c) make that an empty set?

    No one has passed your shit, Joe. Everyone fails it.

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! The 1,2,3,4... are all still there you moron. How are they removed?

     
  • At 8:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Richie,

    No one has failed it. OTOH all you assholes have failed, miserably.

     
  • At 8:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So you think the 2nd set 2 is the original 2?

    "“Joe’s method” gives the wrong answer."

    "Umm, Joe — you haven’t specified the speed of each train, or whether it’s constant, or the distance between “markers” on each number line, and whether it’s constant, so you can’t conclude that Einstein 1′s count is greater than Einstein 2′s at any particular point in time."

    "Perhaps this will make Joe’s “arguments” easier."

    "Don’t worry, Joe will be along shortly with a different and better infinity. He has to, else his revolution in Set Theory will never leave the starting gate.
    "

    "Maybe you should pause for a moment and formulate your comparison method carefully"

    LOL @ fattyfail.

     
  • At 9:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    A 2 is a 2, dumbass.

    My method does not give the wrong answer. Umm I explained the train speed thing and the distance thing. And you morons couldn't make anything easier. i amde it as easy as can be.

    And I don't need a different and better infinity. More bullshit accusations don't mean anything to me.

    So here we have Richie and keiths, obvioulsy knowing nothing about set theory due to their ignorant mistakes, trying to correct me.

    BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

    Didn't know that 0 was an element.

    Didn't understand how to track two number lines that head in the opposite direction- two mirror-image number lines at that!

     
  • At 10:52 PM, Blogger Winston Ewert said…

    Here are two obvious propositions:

    1. If I take one-to-one function of every element in a set, I end up with a set of the same cardinality.

    2. A proper subset should have a lower cardinality then the set itself.

    Let's take the set of natural numbers. Consider the function f(x) = x + 1. This is a one-to-one function. Let X be an arbitrary set, and Y = {f(x) | x \in X}. By #1, |Y| = |X|.

    However, X is a strict subset of Y, and thus should have smaller cardinality by #2.

    So we've got to pick one obvious proposition to jettison.

     
  • At 1:54 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Your method is wrong because it focuses on the elements in a set not the size of the sets.

    If you take a countably infinite set: {0, 1, 2, 3, . . . } amd multiply every element by 17 and get {0, 17, 34, 51 . . . } you have not changed the size of the set. Clearly.

    The inconsistency in your method is thinking that taking a set and modifying each member of the set changes the size of the set. That's wrong.

    Take the set {0, 1, 2, 3}. Multiply each element by 17. You get {0, 17, 34, 51} . Has the size of the set changed? Nope, still has four elements.

    Use the same logic with an infinite set.

    How can you change the size of a set by modifying each element in the set? That's the whole point of lining up the elements of an infinite set with the positive integers. The matching gives you a one-to-one correspondence, which you can think of as a mapping, which shows not only the fact that the sets are the same size but also gives you a value by value definition of the way you could modify the positive integers to get the second set of equal size.

    Time to stop swearing and being abusive. And wrong. I appreciate that you've painted yourself in a corner and that it's hard to admit you've made a mistake after all your posturing and posting. But you are wrong. Time to grow up and admit it. Ask someone you respect with mathematics experience and qualifications.

    AND time to stop saying you understand Set Theory. You have no idea what real Set Theory is about. You think a few Venn diagrams and some intersection and union problems are Set Theory. Your assumption is insulting and dismissive. You cannont address some of the basic concepts and ideas in real Set Theory. You've been told time and time again that your understanding comes up short and yet you still think by repeating yourself and swearing that you win the day. In your ignorance you claim nothing has been built upon Cantor's work when you haven't even bothered to find out!

    Time to stop being a bully boy and grow up. Or not. Your choice.

     
  • At 7:12 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad:
    Your method is wrong because it focuses on the elements in a set not the size of the sets.

    Dumbass, the number of elements determines the size of the set.

    If you take a countably infinite set: {0, 1, 2, 3, . . . } amd multiply every element by 17 and get {0, 17, 34, 51 . . . } you have not changed the size of the set.

    Yes, you have, clearly. And I have explained why.

    And obvioulsy you are too stupid to understand my methodology.

     
  • At 7:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Winston:
    1. If I take one-to-one function of every element in a set, I end up with a set of the same cardinality.

    OK

    2. A proper subset should have a lower cardinality then the set itself.

    That's what I said.

    Let's take the set of natural numbers. Consider the function f(x) = x + 1. This is a one-to-one function. Let X be an arbitrary set, and Y = {f(x) | x \in X}. By #1, |Y| = |X|.

    However, X is a strict subset of Y, and thus should have smaller cardinality by #2.

    So we've got to pick one obvious proposition to jettison.


    I jettisoned the first because it does not take into account that numbers have an actual, meaningful place in the real world

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And Jerad, if you multiply by 17 and just keep all of the products, then you had to remove many elements. Yet keiths said not to.

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "And obvioulsy you are too stupid to understand my methodology."

    Yeah, I guess that MS in Mathematics I got was a complete waste of time.

    "And Jerad, if you multiply by 17 and just keep all of the products, then you had to remove many elements. Yet keiths said not to."

    I don't know who keiths is or what he said. Why don't you try and show me that you really do understand Set Theory and that you've taken a course in the subject. Which would mean using terms and definitions accepted by mathematicians working in that field.

    You keep saying that some of us are too stupid to understand your method or a new concept but you haven't shown a passing understanding of the field you are attempting to criticise.

    And when we disagee with you you resort to profanity. Real professional. Real showing off your knowledge. But you don't even know what Zorn's Lemma is. You dodge any attempts to prove that you really do have an understanding.

    I think I get it now. You're like one of those clowns at the circus. You poke fun, you entertain. But you offer nothing of substance. You're a prankster. A sham. But not an honest one. You won't admit that your purpose is to obsfucate.

     
  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It does appear that your MS in math was a waste of time. If all you can do is repeat what you were told and not question it, then you are a good little mondless drone of a bot.

    And please, provide the evidence that I don't know what Zorn's Lemma is. If you cannot do so you have just proven to be the biggest wanker in the world.

    You can't even follow along for Pete's sake. Who's keiths? He's the asshole who issued the challenge that you read.

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "And please, provide the evidence that I don't know what Zorn's Lemma is. If you cannot do so you have just proven to be the biggest wanker in the world."

    It's easy enough for you to prove me wrong. Show me how it is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. Or not.

    If you won't discuss something then it's like you can't to me.

     
  • At 5:16 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Now I know why evos don't discuss the positive evidence for unguided evolution producing multi-protein systems and meiosis.

    YOU won't ever be discussing any of that.

    And why do I have to show you how they are equivalent? That has been done already

     
  • At 5:35 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "LoL! Now I know why evos don't discuss the positive evidence for unguided evolution producing multi-protein systems and meiosis.

    YOU won't ever be discussing any of that."

    I could discuss it. I would if you really want me to. I'm not expert so I'd consider my opinion suspect. But I'll discuss it if you want.

    "And why do I have to show you how they are equivalent? That has been done already"

    To show you understand it. Duh.

     
  • At 9:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    1- You couldn't discuss the evidence for unguided evolution producing meiosis nor multi-protein systems because there isn't any.

    2- You are sadly mistaken if you think that I have to prove myself to you. How do I know that you understand it? You don't seem to be able to understand much of anything, so I have my doubts...

     
  • At 1:36 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "1- You couldn't discuss the evidence for unguided evolution producing meiosis nor multi-protein systems because there isn't any."

    In your opinion. ID looks at the same evidence that evolution does and comes to different conclusions. If the evidence for un-guided evolution isn't present then there also is no evidence for ID.

    "2- You are sadly mistaken if you think that I have to prove myself to you. How do I know that you understand it? You don't seem to be able to understand much of anything, so I have my doubts…"

    I don't think you HAVE to. But if you don't then your case is unproven. And I don't have to take you seriously.

    You think I don't understand anything but my views are in general agreement with the VAST majority of mathematicians. You think that's just group-speak and mimicing what I've been told. But if you had studied and understood Zorn's Lemma you'd know that's not true.

     
  • At 7:24 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, that is not my opinion, Jerad. There isn't anything in peer-review which means it is a fact.

    If the evidence for un-guided evolution isn't present then there also is no evidence for ID.

    That's just retarded, Jerad.

    So if there isn't any evidence for mother nature producing Stonehenge then there isn't any evidence taht it was designed?

    And do you think tat I care if my case in unproven? Cantor's case is unproven!

     
  • At 8:17 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "So if there isn't any evidence for mother nature producing Stonehenge then there isn't any evidence taht it was designed?"

    No . . . I guess my previous statement was . . . pretty dumb. Sorry.

    "And do you think tat I care if my case in unproven? Cantor's case is unproven!"

    There are other opinions.

     
  • At 8:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And when opinions matter I will take heed...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home