And More stupidity from keiths
-
keiths sez:
And keiths- I was NOT responding to your sticky note post when I posted :
Well now there is a double of the labeled elements. And with set theory that means the original are now removed. All of the odd numbers are gone keiths. They are not there. They have been relabeled as even numbers but the even numbers were already there and labeled.
My point pertains to the sets {1,2,3,4,...} and {2,4,6,8,...}. Obvioulsy in the second set all of the odd numbers have been removed, asshole.
keiths sez:
Always and forever- for infinity even- meaning at every finite point along the journey. Very good keiths. And that means the cardinality of the first set will always be greater than the second.
And to prove keiths is an imbecile, he asked:
The exact thing that I have been saying, asshole. I never said the LKN was a constant.
And as further proof that he is an asshole, keiths sez:
keiths is thanking me for his inability to follow along? My point was that the LKN continues to grow keiths. And yet any set with the LKN as the last element would still be finite and treated as such within Set Theory.
And finally:
That is the bald assertion, keiths. Good luck proving it. Why do people think that infinity is some sort of magical set equalizer?
As the LKN plows forward FOREVER, the set of non-negative integers will always be twice that of the set of positive even integers. You like to change labels, swap LKN for infinity- same thing, they are both never-ending, yet allegedly one label gives a decidedly different answer to the cardinality question.
keiths sez:
If {1,2,3,…} were twice as big as {2,4,6,…}, then the second set would run out of elements before the first one was exhausted.How does that even follow? Are you really that retarded? Really? And you think that you can school me? LoL!
And keiths- I was NOT responding to your sticky note post when I posted :
Well now there is a double of the labeled elements. And with set theory that means the original are now removed. All of the odd numbers are gone keiths. They are not there. They have been relabeled as even numbers but the even numbers were already there and labeled.
My point pertains to the sets {1,2,3,4,...} and {2,4,6,8,...}. Obvioulsy in the second set all of the odd numbers have been removed, asshole.
keiths sez:
When you say that on the journey, one choo-choo train will “always have twice as many numbers” as the other choo-choo train, you are really saying that at every finite point in time, Choo-choo Train #1 will have (approximately) twice as many numbers as Choo-choo Train #2.
Always and forever- for infinity even- meaning at every finite point along the journey. Very good keiths. And that means the cardinality of the first set will always be greater than the second.
And to prove keiths is an imbecile, he asked:
Hey Joe, what happens when you add 1 to the LKN?
The exact thing that I have been saying, asshole. I never said the LKN was a constant.
And as further proof that he is an asshole, keiths sez:
Thank you, Joe.
keiths is thanking me for his inability to follow along? My point was that the LKN continues to grow keiths. And yet any set with the LKN as the last element would still be finite and treated as such within Set Theory.
And finally:
Finite sets and infinite sets behave differently.
That is the bald assertion, keiths. Good luck proving it. Why do people think that infinity is some sort of magical set equalizer?
As the LKN plows forward FOREVER, the set of non-negative integers will always be twice that of the set of positive even integers. You like to change labels, swap LKN for infinity- same thing, they are both never-ending, yet allegedly one label gives a decidedly different answer to the cardinality question.
posted by Joe G @ 5:36 PM
80 Comments:
At 10:40 PM,
socle said…
As the LKN plows forward FOREVER, the set of non-negative integers will always be twice that of the set of positive even integers. You like to change labels, swap LKN for infinity- same thing, they are both never-ending, yet allegedly one label gives a decidedly different answer to the cardinality question.
Here's where I would challenge you, Joe. How can we be sure the LKN will continue increasing forever? Suppose the LKN has been "stuck" at its current value for 100 years. Isn't it just wishful thinking to assume it will suddenly start increasing again?
At 8:40 AM,
Joe G said…
How can we be sure the LKN will continue increasing forever?
What is there to stop it?
Suppose the LKN has been "stuck" at its current value for 100 years.
What can cause it to become stuck?
Isn't it just wishful thinking to assume it will suddenly start increasing again?
It is wishful thinking to think the LKN will become stuck...
At 9:42 AM,
socle said…
How can we be sure the LKN will continue increasing forever?
What is there to stop it?
I don't know, but you've answered my question of "is X true?" with a reply of "how could X not be true?", which is not particularly persuasive.
The LKPN (Largest Known Perfect Number) is currently 2^57885160(2^57885161 - 1). That number was reported in January, yet according to wikipedia, as far as mathematicians know, it is possible that the LKPN will become stuck at some point, perhaps forever.
Can you prove that the LKN can never become stuck? (And not just by asking someone else to demonstrate how it could become stuck).
At 9:52 AM,
Joe G said…
I don't know, but you've answered my question of "is X true?" with a reply of "how could X not be true?",
Nope. Ypour question is the same as "How can we know infinity goes on forever?"
And I didn't say anything about the LKPN.
Can you prove that the LKN can never become stuck?
Can you prove infinity exists and goes on forever?
At 9:58 AM,
Joe G said…
And if there isn't anything that can cause the LKN to become stuck, then what, exactly, do i have to prove?
At 10:09 AM,
socle said…
And I didn't say anything about the LKPN.
True, but that is an example of a "largest known number of type X" which might or might not stop growing.
Can you prove infinity exists and goes on forever?
I don't know. But that's my point. You asserted that the LKN number will grow forever, and I'm saying no, maybe the LKN will stop growing, just as the LKPN could stop growing at 2^57885160(2^57885161 - 1).
And if there isn't anything that can cause the LKN to become stuck, then what, exactly, do i have to prove?
That is what you have to prove---that there isn't anything that can cause the LKN to become stuck.
At 2:06 PM,
Joe G said…
How can the LKN stop growing when all that has to be done to prevent that is add 1 to it?
And the onus would be on the person saying such a thing is impossible- ie it will become stuck.
At 6:34 PM,
socle said…
How can the LKN stop growing when all that has to be done to prevent that is add 1 to it?
Good question. That's one problem with the concept of a LKN. If we assume K is the current LKN, then you already know K + 1 as well. But this contradicts the fact that K was the LKN.
At 6:38 PM,
Joe G said…
"Was" is the operative word.
And once you have assumed K is the current value, you can also assume that value has changed while you were assuming.
At 7:26 PM,
socle said…
And once you have assumed K is the current value, you can also assume that value has changed while you were assuming.
Hmm. Suppose the LKN at the exact instant you read this post is K. Can you give us the value of the LKN as you type your reply?
Keep in mind you have many options: K + 1, K + 2, K + K, K^K, K^K^K, and so on. What is the next LKN?
And what if you don't tell anyone else about the new LKN---does it actually increase? Or do they have to use the old value?
At 10:19 PM,
Joe G said…
The LKN would become stuck if every organism in the universe capable of mathematics, dies. Or maybe it would just be relabeled to : largest number- but who would relabel it?
So the LKN would cease to exist as such if every organism in the universe capable of mathematics, dies.
At 1:43 AM,
Unknown said…
Even if there were a largest known number (which there isn't) that wouldn't mean there was a largest number.
There is a largest known prime number but we know there are infinitely many primes so there is no largest prime number.
At 7:19 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Just because Jerad doesn't know what the LKN or the LN is means there isn't such a thing!
At 11:00 AM,
Unknown said…
"LoL! Just because Jerad doesn't know what the LKN or the LN is means there isn't such a thing!"
Well, what are they then?
And, what's LN^2?
At 11:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Your quest, Jerad, is to find the LKN and Ln. Any decent mathematician would love such a quest. So I am sure you will refuse it...
At 11:32 AM,
Unknown said…
"Your quest, Jerad, is to find the LKN and Ln. Any decent mathematician would love such a quest. So I am sure you will refuse it…"
So, you don't know what they are. You'd like to think they exist. The largest number . . .
Why don't you give us a rigorous mathematical definition of the LN and LKN and then I'll see about trying to find them. I'd hate to spend time and then have you tell me that's not what you meant so lets have your definition first. Including ways that I could document the values.
At 12:27 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm the largest number is the mathematical definition, duh.
At 3:56 PM,
Unknown said…
"Umm the largest number is the mathematical definition, duh."
When? You implied that the largest known number depended on WHEN. So . . . for the purposes of this discussion . . .
What definition of largest known number and largest number would you like me to use?
At 6:25 AM,
Unknown said…
"Umm the largest number is the mathematical definition, duh."
Well . . . not at all really.
For the sake of argument lets take your notion a bit seriously . . . the notion that when there is no longer something capable of counting then whatever had been counted up to that would be the end.
How long will our universe be able to support intelligent life? It's already over 13 billion years old by current estimates. Let's say 15 billion years just for ease of computation. That's 1.5 x 10^10 years. How much longer has it got? Another 15 billion years? 30 billion? 100 billion? Pick one.
After deciding let A (for age) stand for the time between the big bang and the heat death of our universe. A is some really big number.
Now, how fast could someone or something count? And when did they start?
Let's assume, again for ease, that someone or something was counting the whole time the universe was viable. So, A years.
How fast could they count? Once a second? 100 times a second? A billion times a second? Pick a number, call it Cs for counting speed. So many counts per second.
Cs x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 = the number of counts per year. Let's call that result Cy, counts per year.
Cy x A will be the total number of counts during the life of the universe. Some humongeous number. Is it the largest number or even the largest known number?
Hardly.
What is 2 x (Cy x A)? Hey, that's larger!!
How about (Cy x A)^2? Even bigger.
I know, what about (Cy X A)^(Cy x A)? Stupendously big. And I got there without having to count for the whole life of the universe.
There is no largest number or even largest known number. Any candidate you propose I can beat. Easily.
At 6:33 AM,
Unknown said…
Let's suppose there was a largest number. Call it L.
L - 1 would make sense. L - 2 would make sense. L/2 would make sense. The square root of L would make sense. L is a number so you can do arithmetic with it.
But what about L + 1? Well, if L is THE largest number then L + 1 doesn't make sense OR L = L + 1 'cause you can't get any bigger than the biggest eh?
IF L = L + 1 then L = L + 2 = 2*L = L*L = L^L etc.
Let's just take the first equation: L = L + 1
L is a number so you can subtract it from both sides yeah? But that gives you
0 = 1
Uh . . .
How about L = 2*L Divide both sides by L. L is a number so you can do that. And you get
1 = 2
Hmmm . . . .
I don't think this is working.
So, either you hit a ceiling beyond which you can't do mathematics. Which doesn't makes sense. Or you get a lot of contradictions.
There is no largest number.
At 7:29 AM,
Joe G said…
What definition of largest known number and largest number would you like me to use?
I told you already. The largest number contains the definition, duh.
At 7:32 AM,
Joe G said…
How long will our universe be able to support intelligent life?
Not infinitely, that's for sure.
There is no largest number or even largest known number.
There has to be a largest number. And there isn't any infinity.
At 10:54 AM,
Unknown said…
"There has to be a largest number. And there isn't any infinity."
And that's your response to my counter-arguements?
Not exactly laden with mathematical insights or proofs is it? Not much logic either. Not even a demonstration showing how your system would deal with adding to 'the largest number.' Or multiplying it by 2. Or squaring it. Oh well, guess your method isn't very useful then.
At 6:58 AM,
Joe G said…
What counter "arguments"?
What are your "arguments" that there has to be an infinity"?
Not even a demonstration showing how your system would deal with adding to 'the largest number.'
You just fucking add you dipshit. And the same goes for multiplying and squaring.
I challenge you to square a number that takes you years to write down.
I will be here waiting...
At 9:43 AM,
Unknown said…
"I challenge you to square a number that takes you years to write down."
Okay, how about a 1 followed by 20 billion zeroes. That would take a long time to write down.
That number squared is a 1 followed by 40 billion zeroes.
At 10:08 AM,
Joe G said…
No, try it with a number that doesn't have all of the same numbers.
At 12:22 PM,
Unknown said…
"No, try it with a number that doesn't have all of the same numbers."
You mean: try it with a number that doesn't have all the same digits I assume.
Great, give me one. And if you say the largest known number or the largest number then you'll have to provide those 'cause no one else thinks they exist. You do though so it's upon you to produce them.
We could use something like root 2 times 10^20,000,000,000. root 2 has no pattern to it's digits. When you square that you get 2 times 10^40,000,000,000.
At 1:43 PM,
Joe G said…
And if you say the largest known number or the largest number then you'll have to provide those 'cause no one else thinks they exist.
Are these other people the same people that think infinity exists? LoL!
At 2:32 PM,
Unknown said…
"Are these other people the same people that think infinity exists? LoL!"
So, you've not given me a number to work with.
That's avoiding a question. By your standards.
Maybe you should start defending yourself rather than just casting aspersions on others without justification or proving a superior method.
At 2:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad,
That is defending myself.
My method is superior in that it treats numbers as they are, as opposed to making them arbitrary elements and then lining them up e1 to e1.
What the fuck is wrong with you that you cannot grasp how simple my method is?
Do you know what a number line is?
Do you know how to count by ones?
At 6:02 PM,
Unknown said…
"My method is superior in that it treats numbers as they are, as opposed to making them arbitrary elements and then lining them up e1 to e1."
Still not given me a number to work with. And waiting . . .
"What the fuck is wrong with you that you cannot grasp how simple my method is?"
Perhaps too simple to work?
You proposed a challenge, to sqaure a number that it takes yeare to write down, and you can't give me such a number.
Why don't you rise to the challenge you proposed instead of calling names? If you can.
At 6:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Still not given me a number to work with.
How can I when it changes? Has there been an infinite or finite amount of time between the beginning of this universe and now?
You proposed a challenge, to sqaure a number that it takes yeare to write down, and you can't give me such a number.
Umm, start writing down a number using digits 0-9. Write at a clip of 1 digit per second for two years using the digits equally and in no apparent order.
Once you are finished with that, square it and tell me the answer.
THAT is my challenge, Jerad
At 6:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you know what a number line is?
Do you know how to count by ones?
At 1:22 AM,
Unknown said…
"Umm, start writing down a number using digits 0-9. Write at a clip of 1 digit per second for two years using the digits equally and in no apparent order.
Once you are finished with that, square it and tell me the answer."
Right, generate a random sequence of 63,072,000 digits and square that number.
Let's say my random sequence starts out as 3, 1, 4, 1, 5 . . . . .
The number would be 3.1415 x 10^63,071,999 approximately.
And when I square it I'd get 9.something x 10^126,143,998
If I do that you'll admit what exactly? And how will you check my answer?
"Do you know what a number line is?"
Yup
"Do you know how to count by ones?"
Yup
Trouble is, not all infinite sets comprise numbers on the number line so another method of comparing them is required.
At 7:33 AM,
Joe G said…
Right, generate a random sequence of 63,072,000 digits and square that number.
Heck, that's a very small number. Should be easy for you.
Trouble is, not all infinite sets comprise numbers on the number line so another method of comparing them is required.
Infinity only exists in your mind and not all things need to be compared.
At 7:34 AM,
Joe G said…
If I do that you'll admit what exactly?
I'll admit that you are a dumbass for doing it.
At 9:35 AM,
Unknown said…
"I'll admit that you are a dumbass for doing it."
Don't think I'll bother then if you're just trying to get me to waste my time. And if you're not really interested in learning something new.
Why don't you start with a transistor and backtrack through the theories and models that made the development of the transistor possible. Or the theory behind an atomic bomb. Good luck with Quantum Mechanics. I've always found it very challenging.
At 10:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad,
YOU couldn't teach anyone anything. YOU can't even follow along...
At 5:46 PM,
Unknown said…
"YOU couldn't teach anyone anything. YOU can't even follow along…"
Again, you're entitled to your opinion. However I would like to point out that you contine to resort to profanity and bullying tactics instead of behaving rationally and with intellectual arguments.
In my experience, when someone starts swearing and stops answering questions then they have run out of ground but are determined to win regardless of the frailty of their position.
At 7:03 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad,
I gave you the intellectual arguments. You choked on them and just started repeating yourself.
At 4:43 PM,
Unknown said…
"I gave you the intellectual arguments. You choked on them and just started repeating yourself."
At least I didn't choke on my own claims. Like . . .
There is a smallest number in (0, 1).
Or
{1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } is a finite set.
Or
The square root of 2 doesn't exist.
And when you're asked to prove those claims . . . you choke. And sometimes you don't even bother to try. Why is that?
At 4:46 PM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Jerad, you choke on everything-
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.
And no one can demonstrate otherwise. All Jerad can do is act like the little whiny baby that he is.
And it is very telling that you cannot write diown the exact number for the square root of 2...
At 5:06 PM,
Unknown said…
"And it is very telling that you cannot write diown the exact number for the square root of 2…"
That's because in your limited understanding exact values come down to strictly decimal representations.
why don't you work on answering some questions:
What is the smallest element in {0, 1)?
What is the length of the diagonal of a unit square?
Is {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } a finite set?
Show the world how you can handle these cases. In such a way as to be consistent with the rest of established mathematics.
At 5:09 PM,
Joe G said…
That's because in your limited understanding exact values come down to strictly decimal representations.
It has to be a number Jerad. Don't blame me because you cannot do it.
At 1:16 AM,
Unknown said…
"It has to be a number Jerad. Don't blame me because you cannot do it."
I know what the length of the diagonal of a unit square is. I've told you many times.
Your problem is your methods don't work and can't answer the questions. So you keep avoiding answering the questions and hope we'll give up and let you off the hook.
What are the cardinalities of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . } and {1, ½, ¼, ⅛ . . . . } ?
What is the smallest element in (0, 1) ?
What is the length of the diagonal of a unit square?
Here' another one: If the diameter of a circle is 1 then what is the circumference?
At 9:13 AM,
Joe G said…
I know what the length of the diagonal of a unit square is. I've told you many times.
You have NOT provided an exact number. You lie.
And I am not answering your irrelevant questions until you pay me.
At 9:41 AM,
Unknown said…
" 'I know what the length of the diagonal of a unit square is. I've told you many times.'
You have NOT provided an exact number. You lie."
JoeMath can't handle irrational numbers.
"And I am not answering your irrelevant questions until you pay me."
Choke. JoeMath can't uphold it's own assertions.
At 9:52 AM,
Joe G said…
Irrational numbers are for irrational people. And here you are.
At 11:42 AM,
Unknown said…
"Irrational numbers are for irrational people. And here you are."
So, what do we think of today's performance? Phil?
Well Bob, I think JoeMath's inexcuseable ignorance of even some ancient mathematics has hurt him severely. He was always bound to be a one-trick pony owning to his continually pushing the same attack over and over again but I'm not so sure he even has one-trick anymore.
And the pony's not looking so good either.
Also, JoeMath's inability to defend his own proclamations is looking real bad at the moment. Claims that run counter to hundreds of years of accepted mathematics which are not backed up or supported just start to look like crankism at best.
Yup, he's looking to lose any reputation he had.
Sad, there seemed to be so much promise.
Promise but no follow through. It's a killer.
So, what do you think of his demands for payment?
Well, that's laughable isn't it? When everyone else is here for free and can demonstrate they can handle situations that JoeMath keeps choking on.
At 5:29 PM,
Unknown said…
And, sadly, JoeMaths is still choking on his own claims. This has to be a damaging outcome for JoeMaths.
I completely agree PHil. JoeMaths has really screwed the pooch today. I'm not sure how he's going to get back into the game now.
At 1:23 PM,
Joe G said…
Dear Jerad,
Seeing that you are too stupid to understand that the faster the rate of count means that more elements will be counted and that more elements means a greater cardinality, perhaps mathematics isn’t your thing and you just should shut up.
At 3:16 PM,
Unknown said…
"Seeing that you are too stupid to understand that the faster the rate of count means that more elements will be counted and that more elements means a greater cardinality, perhaps mathematics isn’t your thing and you just should shut up."
It's like that movie Groundhog Day. But more boring. And the graphics aren't great either.
Hey, can I still get back all the time I wasted on this?
At 3:33 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad,
I ask myself that daily- how can I get back the time I have wasted on you?
AGAIN, one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- for INFINITY you dickless wonder.
You are boring and stupid.
At 5:47 PM,
Unknown said…
"I ask myself that daily- how can I get back the time I have wasted on you?"
Hey, it's your blog. You can do what you like.
"AGAIN, one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- for INFINITY you dickless wonder."
Does swearing help? I never tried that in my math classes. Maybe I should have. Do you have to generate a lot of spittle? Does referring to parts of the male anatomy help? So much I have to learn.
"You are boring and stupid."
I agree. But I have the backing of 100s of years of mathematics. You, on the other hand have . . . JoeMaths? Which can't even answer some basic questions?
What is the smallest element in (0,1) ? I know, you're used to people whose attention span is about 10 minutes at best so you're not really geared up for people who remember all the stupid things you said and asserted more that once. Sorry about that.
I think you also said that you didn't believe in irrational numbers like root 2.
And I'm really sure you never answered:
How do the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . } compare?
I'd remember a definitive answer on that. Not just: one is bigger. But, you know, an answer with some balls. Have you got one?
You say: I fix things- all kinds of things- mechanical, electrical, electronic and personal.
Can you fix JoeMaths? Can you answer some questions? The world waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits.
And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits. And waits.
At 8:22 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad,
YOU are broken, not JoeMath. And you have the "backing" of lazy cowards who, like you, are unable to count.
I think you also said that you didn't believe in irrational numbers like root 2.
Hey faggot, YOU cannot produce the exact number- THAT has been my claim, asshole.
At 12:15 AM,
Unknown said…
"YOU are broken, not JoeMath. And you have the "backing" of lazy cowards who, like you, are unable to count."
You mean like Betrand Russell? Albert Einstein? Richard Feynman? Neils Bohr? George Hilbert? Kurt Godel? GH Hardy?
"Hey faggot, YOU cannot produce the exact number- THAT has been my claim, asshole."
Nope, you said that root 2 didn't exist because 2 is a prime number. You can change your statement if you wish but you did say that.
At 7:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Until you can give me an exact number, it doesn't exist, Jerad.
At 8:52 AM,
Unknown said…
"Until you can give me an exact number, it doesn't exist, Jerad."
Oh dear, JoeMaths can't handle irrational numbers. Even though they exist. Oh well.
At 8:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Jeard continues to choke. Oh dear still no exact number of the square root of 2...
At 9:45 AM,
Unknown said…
"Jeard continues to choke. Oh dear still no exact number of the square root of 2…"
Not my problem if you don't understand irrational numbers. JoeMaths, an irrational number free zone. And, therefore, a Real number free zone. And I mean REAL NUMBER in the mathematical sense, not in your 4th grade misunderstanding sense.
At 9:46 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Jerad, I see that you are proud to be a fucking asshole.
At 1:46 AM,
Unknown said…
"LoL! Jerad, I see that you are proud to be a fucking asshole."
Gosh you are obssessed with body parts found between people's legs. Just like a 4th grader. Amazing.
Is {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } an infinite set? Yes or no? What is its cardinality?
At 9:52 AM,
Joe G said…
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...
At 5:21 PM,
Unknown said…
"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…"
Once again we'd like to apologise to readers of this blog. Our artificial intelligence algorithm has failed and has begun spitting out the same response to many posts. We are working on the problem and hope to be able to give you the humerous and entertaining response of JoeMaths very soon. In the meantime, why not listen to some Liberace records? Or engage in some slightly racy sexual practices? Joe might be able to help you with that, he's very keen on genitalia.
At 9:24 PM,
Joe G said…
You are genitalia, Jerad. That appears to be your problem.
At 1:35 AM,
Unknown said…
"You are genitalia, Jerad. That appears to be your problem."
Uh huh. At least you managed a new response.
But you still haven't compared the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } I know you can't do it, you know you can't do it but a mature person would admit it. But you won't. That's just one of the reasons I don't think you're sincere at all about these mathematical discussions. Aside from not understanding basic reasoning and resorting to profanity when people disagree with you.
Oh, I meant to ask: did you actually pass that Calculus class?
At 9:12 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Jerad, YOU don't understand basic reasoning. Infinity is not a magical transformer.
At 9:42 AM,
Unknown said…
"LoL! Jerad, YOU don't understand basic reasoning. Infinity is not a magical transformer."
I don't think it is. But I know how to handle it. You don't. If you did you could compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } But you can't so you run away from having to deal with it. Sad.
At 1:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad,
The evidence says Cantor and all of his followers see infinity as a magical transformer. You can deny it for infinity, that ain't going to change the evidence.
You don't even understand that the set of non-negative integers contains all of the non-negative even integers. And that means we have a NATURAL, ie DERIVED, exact matching correspondence, even number to even number, with the odd numbers left unmatched. And that this occurs for infinity.
Again my methodology is natural/ derived and Cantor's is artificial and contrived.
And until we get that straight you have no right to ask anything of JoeMath.
At 1:46 PM,
Unknown said…
"The evidence says Cantor and all of his followers see infinity as a magical transformer. You can deny it for infinity, that ain't going to change the evidence."
You can misinterpret 100 years of mathematics all you wish. it doesn't make you right.
"You don't even understand that the set of non-negative integers contains all of the non-negative even integers. And that means we have a NATURAL, ie DERIVED, exact matching correspondence, even number to even number, with the odd numbers left unmatched. And that this occurs for infinity."
Poor Joe, confusing qualities of the set elements with the number of set elements. It happens.
"Again my methodology is natural/ derived and Cantor's is artificial and contrived."
Why do you think Cantor came up with 'his' technique? Because other paradigms didn't work. Just like your methods don't work. Even though you won't admit it.
"And until we get that straight you have no right to ask anything of JoeMath."
Oooooo, I'm really scared. JoeMaths is so afraid of it'a ability to handle situations that it throws up a smoke screen when it's stuck.
YOU have every right to refuse to address certain questions but you just make yourself and your method look worthless. As long as you're happy with that I'm good.
If, on the other hand, you want to handle comparing the cardinality of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . } then let me know. Otherwise. . . . well. . . you deal with the laughs and jeers from people who can handle that issue. It's your call.
I know you're losing interest in the discussion. And you think you've won. But you're still all alone. With no support. No academic support.
At 2:15 PM,
Joe G said…
You can misinterpret 100 years of mathematics all you wish.
How am I misinterpretting it? Make your case as opposed to your continued cowardly false accusations.
Poor Joe, confusing qualities of the set elements with the number of set elements.
Liar.
Why do you think Cantor came up with 'his' technique?
Laziness.
Because other paradigms didn't work.
No one can prove that his method works.
Just like your methods don't work.
My method works. Just because you are a moron that doesn't mean my method is flawed.
And I do NOT think I have won. It is obvious that I have.
At 2:39 PM,
Unknown said…
"How am I misinterpretting it? Make your case as opposed to your continued cowardly false accusations."
I have done. You just shout it down or don't understqnd it. What's the point?
" 'Why do you think Cantor came up with 'his' technique? '
Laziness."
Really? Well, if you're approach is so much better then you should be able to handle comparing the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }
But you can't and you won't and you know this. But you're not mature enough to admit it.
"No one can prove that his method works. '
They can and do but you can't understand the evidence. And, mostly, you can't be bothered to look.
"My method works. Just because you are a moron that doesn't mean my method is flawed."
If it works then why can't you compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } ?
Why is that? Huh?
"And I do NOT think I have won. It is obvious that I have."
Which is why you have articles published in peer reviewed journals. And lots and lots of mathematicians are acknowledging you contribution. Oh . . . wait . . . they're NOT doing that? So, let me get this straight . . . no one, I mean absolutely no one, except for Joe himself, is taking JoeMaths seriously? Is that correct?
Wow.
I guess it's not really worth any effort then. Oh well, it happens.
At 4:12 PM,
Unknown said…
"How am I misinterpretting it? Make your case as opposed to your continued cowardly false accusations."
Your childish 'stories' about how Cantor came to his conclusions for a start. Your thinking that the rest of us just throw up our hands and say infinity is some kind of magic equaliser for another. And when we do try and explain you don't understand and you swear. And you can't handle situations like comparing the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }. If you understood the argument you could at least answer that question. But you can't.
" 'Why do you think Cantor came up with 'his' technique? '
Laziness."
And you ask why I think you don't understand and misrepresent the topic and its development? What a maroon.
"No one can prove that his method works. "
Show us yours does. Compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } Go on. If you can.
"My method works. Just because you are a moron that doesn't mean my method is flawed."
Great, then compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }. Go on. Show us.
"And I do NOT think I have won. It is obvious that I have."
Great, then you should be able to compare the cardinalities of {1,2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }
IF your method works that is.
At 5:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Jerad,
You are a liar. You have not demonstrated that I am misinterpretting anything.
Your thinking that the rest of us just throw up our hands and say infinity is some kind of magic equaliser for another.
That is what the evidence demonstrates. So don't blame me.
At 6:21 PM,
Unknown said…
"You are a liar. You have not demonstrated that I am misinterpretting anything."
Fine. Then you show me the documentary evidence that your representation of Cantor's work is correct. Go on. I'll wait.
" 'Your thinking that the rest of us just throw up our hands and say infinity is some kind of magic equaliser for another. '
That is what the evidence demonstrates. So don't blame me."
I do blame you for not understanding the structures and rules Cantor laid out. I do blame you for ASSUMING that it's all just mumbo-jumbo without having studied it. I do blame you for your default position to be "I'm right and thousands (maybe millions) of mathematicians are wrong."
And you can't even compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }
Or find the smallest element in (0, 1). Which you claimd had to exist.
Where are the hordes of people supporting your view? Where are the peer-reviwed research papers making your same point? Where do you compare the cardinalities of {1,2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } ? Where is that done?
At 8:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Then you show me the documentary evidence that your representation of Cantor's work is correct.
Show me the documentation that demonstrates I am misinterpretting him.
To Cantor the value/ quality of a set's members matters when one is checking to see if one set is a proper subset of another.
The alignment for checking subset status is an exact match of each set's members.
Yet when checking cardinalities all of a sudden the members qualities do not matter and another alignment technique used.
And you are to stupid to understand that.
At 2:10 AM,
Unknown said…
"Show me the documentation that demonstrates I am misinterpretting him."
Oh right. You get to say any stupid thing you want and you're right until proven wrong? hahahahaha What a maroon.
"To Cantor the value/ quality of a set's members matters when one is checking to see if one set is a proper subset of another."
Why do you terms like quality? If every element of the first set is also an element of the second set and the second set has elements that are not in the first set then yup. AND that has nothing to do with comparing their cardinalities.
"The alignment for checking subset status is an exact match of each set's members.
Yet when checking cardinalities all of a sudden the members qualities do not matter and another alignment technique used."
My god, you just can't grasp simple concepts.
"And you are to stupid to understand that."
And you think it matters.
The cardinality of a set is only about its size! Somehow you never seemed to have grasped that.
At 9:29 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! So Jerad cannot provide anything tat demonstrates I am misinterpretting Cantor. No surprise there.
"To Cantor the value/ quality of a set's members matters when one is checking to see if one set is a proper subset of another."
Why do you terms like quality?
Because the quality of the set's members matters sometimes and not others. Cantor is being inconsistent.
The cardinality of a set is only about its size!
And being a proper subset says something about a set's size!
And yes, I grasp the concept of magical transformers. It is useless.
At 2:11 AM,
Unknown said…
"LoL! So Jerad cannot provide anything tat demonstrates I am misinterpretting Cantor. No surprise there."
Your own words show that.
"Because the quality of the set's members matters sometimes and not others. Cantor is being inconsistent."
Nope.
"And being a proper subset says something about a set's size!"
Only for finite sets.
"And yes, I grasp the concept of magical transformers. It is useless."
Clearly you don't. And they're not magical except to people who don't get them.
At 9:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad,
Your false accusations mean nothing. And your denials are very telling.
Post a Comment
<< Home