Applying my Methodology to Oleg's Ass Sets
-
Oleg presented two sets {0,1.01,2,3,…} and {1,2,3,…}.
Applying my methodology set 1 has the gretaer cardinality. Every member of the 2nd set is also a member of the first, save 1. Set 1 has two members not in set 2. 2>1
Now look at {0,1,2,3,…} and {0,1.01,2,3,…}, they would have the same cardinality using my methodology. We can cancel out every member in each set except 1. 1=1
oleg sez:
Yes
No
Not satisfied oleg axes:
For x = 0.1 we have set A={0.1, 1.1,2,3,4,...} and set B={1,2,3,4,...}
set A has a greater cardinality than set B- again 2 - 1 = 1. IOW set A has every member of set B covered, but the number 1. And set A has 2 numbers that set B does not.
Oleg presented two sets {0,1.01,2,3,…} and {1,2,3,…}.
Applying my methodology set 1 has the gretaer cardinality. Every member of the 2nd set is also a member of the first, save 1. Set 1 has two members not in set 2. 2>1
Now look at {0,1,2,3,…} and {0,1.01,2,3,…}, they would have the same cardinality using my methodology. We can cancel out every member in each set except 1. 1=1
oleg sez:
We have thus demonstrated that {0,1,2,3,…} has the same size as {0,1.01,2,3,…},
Yes
which in turn has the same size as {1,2,3,…}.
No
Not satisfied oleg axes:
How about comparing {x,1+x,2,3,4,…} and {1,2,3,4…}, Joe?
For x = 0.1 we have set A={0.1, 1.1,2,3,4,...} and set B={1,2,3,4,...}
set A has a greater cardinality than set B- again 2 - 1 = 1. IOW set A has every member of set B covered, but the number 1. And set A has 2 numbers that set B does not.
posted by Joe G @ 8:42 AM
18 Comments:
At 1:52 AM,
Unknown said…
Repeating your misunderstanding doesn't make it true.
All countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. Period.
It's not a matter of what is in the sets, it's the size of the sets. And {1, 2, 3 . . . } and {0, 1, 2, . . .} are the same size.
At 7:08 AM,
Joe G said…
What misunderstanding? Just saying that I have a misunderstanding doesn't make it so.
And why doesn't it matter what is in the sets?
At 1:41 PM,
Unknown said…
Cardinality has to do with the size of the sets NOT what is in them.
If you take the sets {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . . }
and {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . }
You can match them up, one for one. And you can specify a member of one set and, given the matching criteria, I can tell you what member of the other set matches with it. Both sets have the same number of elements. You cannot find an element of one set that does not have a matched element in the other set. Therefore, the sets are the same size.
At 1:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Right, make all elements = e and then its eeeeeeeeeeeeee.... all the way down!!!11!!!1!!! It's like the never-ending steep roller coaster drop effect and terminal velocity.
BTW the size of the sets depends on what is in them, as in how many whats does this set contain.
At 1:52 PM,
Unknown said…
The size of a set depends on how many things are in it. And you can match up the elements of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } with {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } one to one as far as you want to go. They have the same number of elements as you can never out-strip one with the other. They are the same size. They have the same cardinality.
At 2:03 PM,
Joe G said…
The size of a set depends on how many things are in it.
Yes, I know.
And you can match up the elements of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } with {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } one to one as far as you want to go.
Spacetime. That means delta T is important. When you look at the sets as they both go out to infinity determines how many things are in it.
As I said the number line- you are looking down a number line when you have a set on infinite numbers. And when you look is important.
At 2:14 AM,
Unknown said…
Spacetime? What?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Joe, you really, really do not understand mathematics. You think you do. You think all the PhDs who've spent years and years studying and working and publishing are just pointy-headed geeks who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and that you, with your naive self-confidence, can do as well.
And, when you're clearly wrong, you expect the people you disrespect to take the time to spell out your errors and help you understand?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
"And when you look is important."
:-)
Keep going please!
At 7:03 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes spacetime you ignorant fuck.
Does Jerad really think his ignorance refutes what I post?
Really Jerad?
At 9:19 AM,
Unknown said…
"Yes spacetime you ignorant fuck.
Does Jerad really think his ignorance refutes what I post?
Really Jerad?"
Ask Dr Dembski, see what he says.
If he agrees with me is he an ignorant moron too?
At 2:21 AM,
Unknown said…
Have you asked Dr Dembski?
Or are you too afraid to do that?
Worried that I might be right?
Or that Dr Dembski wouldn't even bother to respond?
Tough call eh?
At 7:09 AM,
Joe G said…
I don't need to ask anyone. And obvioulsy you aree too stupid to grasp a new concept.
At 5:39 PM,
Unknown said…
"I don't need to ask anyone. And obvioulsy you aree too stupid to grasp a new concept."
OR I want to hear you elucidate it further to make sure I don't misinterpret you.
OR I don't want to put words in your mouth.
OR I have examined the concept and found it lacking.
At 8:54 PM,
Joe G said…
And what is the advantage of saying that two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality?
What does that give us?
At 1:28 AM,
Unknown said…
"And what is the advantage of saying that two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality?
What does that give us?"
It means we can deal with some of the issues that other areas of mathematics were dealing with at the time. And since.
Besides, you took a Set Theory course, you should know!!
At 7:20 AM,
Joe G said…
I do know- there isn't any advantage and it gives us nothing.
At 8:20 AM,
Unknown said…
"I do know- there isn't any advantage and it gives us nothing."
There are other opinions.
At 8:27 AM,
Joe G said…
Opinions? Why is it that no one can demonstrate a use nor tell us the advantage nor what it gives us.
At 12:12 PM,
Unknown said…
"Opinions? Why is it that no one can demonstrate a use nor tell us the advantage nor what it gives us."
Well, I did try and copy and paste some stuff from Wikipedia.
I could do it again.
OR you could just go look and find out!!
If you cared.
When I wanted to know about ID I went to talk to people at Uncoomon Descent. I tested my ideas against theirs. I engaged them in discussions. And I when I'd had my say and figured some things out I shut up. I still disagree with much of the ID paradigm but I didn't resort to profanity or being lazy, expecting everyone else to bring the information to me. I cared about finding out.
Do you care? Really?
Oh no, that's right, you don't. As you said on another thread: when opinions matter you'll pay attention.
Fortunately, for mathematics, it's not just a matter of opinion. It's a matter of demonstration, proof and answering questions about your method.
It's a matter of fighting your case on the common ground. In front of the world. Taking a risk. Not being afraid.
Post a Comment
<< Home