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

Monday, May 20, 2013

keiths is full of shit and proud of it

keiths, please go fuck yourself. Your examples prove that you are nothing but a fuckhead.

For example you spew:
But that’s silly, because you could just as easily choose a different mapping, such as:
0 doesn’t map to anything
1 doesn’t map to anything
2 doesn’t map to anything
3 <--> 1
4 <-->; 2
5 <--> 3
… and so on.
No, you stupid fuck. That fucks up my stated methodology. My methodolgy states that you actually compare the two sets and the members that are the same are aligned. So 1 would always align with 1.

With my methodology {0,1,2,3,...} will always have a greater cardinality than {1,2,3,4,...}, because it has all of the members of that set covered AND it has a member of its set that the other does not.

So yes, if you want to be a total fucking asshole then my methodology doesn't work. However that is your problem and not indicative of the methodology.

For example this:

A= {0,1,2,3,...} and B= {0,2,4,6,...} AGAIN the first set has all of the members of the second set covered AND it has members the second set does not have. Therefor my methodology says that set A's cardinality is greater than set B's.

Even my fourth grade daughter understands it.

Then oleg the asswipe chimes in again with more nonsense:

 For a small x (say, between 0 and 1), the sets {0,1,2,3,…} and {0+x,1+x,2+x,3+x,…} have no common members. None is a proper subset of the other. So his comparison method fails.

A 0 for x and the sets are the same, oleg. x = 1 and we are right back where we started. Are you really that fucking retarded?

And again, my comparison method works for anyone familiar with sets. And if you can't tell if two infinite sets have matching members, then you cannot use my methodology. Duh.


  • At 12:44 AM, Blogger socle said…


    Are you saying then that your method would not allow you to compare the cardinalities of the sets {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} and {0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, ...}? That would be a serious flaw, since Cantor's method allows you to compare cardinalities of any two sets.

    For example, you can construct an interesting set in this way:

    Take the numbers 0 through 1 on a number line. Now remove the "middle third", that is, all the numbers between 1/3 and 2/3 (leave 1/3 and 2/3 in, however.) It's like sawing the middle 2 feet out of a 6 foot length of 2x4.

    Now remove the middle thirds of the two pieces you have left. Keep going forever, removing middle thirds.

    Here's a picture illustrating the process:

    It seems like you would have nothing left, right? Wrong. The set you will have left is infinite, and is actually uncountable, which means that its cardinality is larger than that of the natural numbers. In fact, it's the same "size" as the set you started with.

  • At 6:53 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    For those sets Cantor works fine so I wouldn't mess with his method.

    My method only applies for specific cases- the cases mentioned.

  • At 1:57 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Gee, Cantor vs Joe . . .

    Hmm . . . .

    I'll take Cantor. And Frege. And Dedekind. And lots of other mathematicians.

    But that's just me.

    I tell you what Joe: why don't you email Dr Dembski and ask him. He's got a PhD in mathematics, he should know who's right.

  • At 7:05 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    Why don't you tell me the practical application of saying that all infinite and countable sets have the same cardinality. And if it doesn't have any then it is clear that there isn't any right nor wrong wrt this scenario.

  • At 1:46 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Practical applications have nothing to do with it. It's a matter of logic and definition.

    All countably infinite sets can be matched, term for term, by any other countably infinite set. Therefore, they are all the same size.

    Sorry, I'm coming off as anonymous. It's my RSS feed reader. Unknown is Jerad.

  • At 2:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    No, it's a matter of an arbitrary definition.

  • At 2:16 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "It's a matter of an arbitrary decision."


  • At 7:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Jerad is too retarded to understand what is going on.


  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "So Jerad is too retarded to understand what is going on."

    Joe, have you found anyone who agrees with your interpretation of infinity and cardinality? Anyone who has study mathematics? Can you support your view with published works stretching back over a century and built upon by generations of mathematicians?

    As I said, anytime you want to discuss The Axiom of Choice let me know. Or the difference between countably and uncountably infinite sets. Or transcendental numbers. How about imaginary numbers? You have heard of those? You know how they're used in science and engineering I trust.

  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    I can't find anyone who can DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong.

    And if you want to change the subject then please tell me how it is relevant- or start your own blog.

  • At 2:24 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I can't find anyone who can DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong."

    OR that you can't understand the counter-examples.

    Seriously Joe your knowledge of mathematics is less than elementary. You remind me of a friend of mine who didn't understand probability. He used to say: everything is 50-50, either it happens or it doesn't happen.

  • At 7:08 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Seriously Jerad, You are nothing but a clueless asshole.

    You remind me of the tards in special ed.


Post a Comment

<< Home