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

Sunday, May 19, 2013

KeithS Chimes in

Earth to keiths, I understand what you are saying. It is the same thing oleg said. And as I said that mapping is arbitrary. Why choose an arbitrary mapping when we can do a direct number by number comparison?

One set has every number of the other set PLUS one number the other set does not contain. To say they have the same cardinality or are the size, is just subjective. And just because you chumps buy it without question, don't get upset with me because I can see the obvious and you cannot.

But the big question is how is any of this relevant to the real world? No one can measure infinity so any talk of size wrt infinity is futile. And Cantor himself said there are different degrees of infinity.

BTW Neil's example is bogus because he was dealing with two very different sets of things.

Now if someone had asked if {knife, fork} was the same size as {cup, saucer}, I would have said they have the same cardinality and therefor of equal size.

And yes, that mapping works fine on sets of FINITE size. So please stop mixing finite sets with infinite sets. The two are not the same. There isn't an infinite number of forks and knives. There isn't an infinite number of letters.

If there were two runners, one starting at mile 0 and the other starting at mile 1. The runner at mile 1 starts running when the runner from mile 0 reaches him/ her. They then run in lockstep for infinity. At any and every point in time the runner from mile 0 will have run one more mile than the other runner. No one would arbitrarily move the starting mile 0 line after the runner made it to the mile 1 marker.

But by your logic, both runners have ran the same distance all along.

So to sum it all up, math that doesn't have any practical applications and uses arbitrary rules, seems very petty and meaningless. As this is a perfect example of such math.

Please do a post when you find some usefullness for this concept OR of you ever find some evidence that supports your raw speewage wrt unguided evolution.

Earth to keiths- if you think that unguided evolution has any support then it is YOU who is hopelessly confused.

Earth to oleg the asshole- Math isn't arbitrary and subjective, yet this is. So if this is math, it is fringe math that is useless. So who cares but the losers who cannot support their position so they are forced to cause distractions?

Oleg, dipshit, not all of set theory is fringe math because not all of set theory uses arbitrary rules. Just this part-> dealing with infinite sets of obvious different sizes and saying they are the same is fringe. Grow up you fucking tard.

And petrushka, seeing that not every set is a nested hierarchy, and seeing that nested hierarchies do NOT deal with infinite sets, set theory has little to do with nested hierarchy.  See Set theory is irrelevant when discussing nested hierarchies


  • At 5:08 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    9/10 meltdown!

    y = 2X + 5

    "Math isn't arbitrary and subjective, yet this is"

    Yeah, it's not like you could put any number if for X in the above equation!

  • At 6:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Gee Richie, your are an ignorant piece of shit as that equation has absolutely NOTHING to do with infinite sets.

    Thanks for proving that you are an ignorant asswipe. As if I needed more proof of that...


Post a Comment

<< Home