keiths, proud to be a TARD

Now that the game has been exposed and is over, keiths still wants to prove that he is top TARD:
They're gone dumbass. Don't blame me for your ignorance. Anyone but an evoTARD can see half of the numbers are missing.
keiths also sed:
LoL! You dumbass, all you have proven is that you cannot follow directions. Nice job assface.
keiths responds:
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.
Then keiths axes:
If you have to ask. You do realize that my blog posts contain the directions. Or are you saying that you are arguing against me and you don't have a clue as to what I am saying (even though I clearly stated it in several posts)?
Using my principle {1,2,3,4,...} will always have twice the cardinality as {2,4,6,8,...}.
Then keiths spews some more shit about infinity and doesn't see that he is repeating what I posted. keiths, you are a dumbass. I said infinity goes on forever. I have said that many times. And on that forever journey the train will pick up more nonnegative integers than it will positive even integers FOREVER. And he doesn't seem to understand that I am no longer talking about sets...
Now that the game has been exposed and is over, keiths still wants to prove that he is top TARD:
C’mon, Joe, don’t give up — an entire internet audience is awaiting your floundering, expletivelaced Joexplanation of how relabeling a set of objects makes half of them vanish into thin air.
They're gone dumbass. Don't blame me for your ignorance. Anyone but an evoTARD can see half of the numbers are missing.
We also want to know what to do when Joe’s Principle of Extension to Infinity collides with Joe’s Earlier Principle of Cardinality by Mapping Function.It doesn't collide if you can actually follow directions.
Should we apply the theory of relativity? Should we “go fuck ourselves”?Your dick is way to small for you to fuck yourself. And I doubt you could find your ass even if you used both of your hands.
keiths also sed:
OK, Joe, here’s a pattern for you:
{1} has the same cardinality as {2}
{1,2} has the same cardinality as {2,4}
{1,2,3} has the same cardinality as {2,4,6}
{1,2,3,4} has the same cardinality as {2,4,6,8}
By using Joe’s Principle of Extension to Infinity, we can conclude that
{1,2,3,4,…} has the same cardinality as {2,4,6,8,…}.
We have thus contradicted Joe’s Earlier Principle of Cardinality by Mapping Function.
LoL! You dumbass, all you have proven is that you cannot follow directions. Nice job assface.
keiths responds:
All we did was change the labels, Joe. Nobody removed any elements, but you claim that half of them are now missing. Why?
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.
Then keiths axes:
What directions, Joe?
If you have to ask. You do realize that my blog posts contain the directions. Or are you saying that you are arguing against me and you don't have a clue as to what I am saying (even though I clearly stated it in several posts)?
Using my principle {1,2,3,4,...} will always have twice the cardinality as {2,4,6,8,...}.
Then keiths spews some more shit about infinity and doesn't see that he is repeating what I posted. keiths, you are a dumbass. I said infinity goes on forever. I have said that many times. And on that forever journey the train will pick up more nonnegative integers than it will positive even integers FOREVER. And he doesn't seem to understand that I am no longer talking about sets...
18 Comments:
At 4:33 PM, Unknown said…
"Then keiths spews some more shit about infinity and doesn't see that he is repeating what I posted. keiths, you are a dumbass. I said infinity goes on forever. I have said that many times. And on that forever journey the train will pick up more nonnegative integers than it will positive even integers FOREVER. And he doesn't seem to understand that I am no longer talking about sets…"
Of course you're talking about sets: the sets of numbers the trains pick up.
A set is just a collection. They don't have magical properties. And every set has a size and a cardinal number associated with that size.
At 5:03 PM, Joe G said…
Of course you're talking about sets:
Nope.
the sets of numbers the trains pick up.
It picks up individual numbers.
A set is just a collection.
You cannot collect the infinite.
At 5:22 PM, Unknown said…
"You cannot collect the infinite."
Of course you can. In mathematics.
Let A = {1, 2, 3, 4, . . . . } I know what's in that set and what isn't. Its definition is clear and unambiguous.
Is 7854 in that set? You bet! Is 5.6 in that set? Nope. Is an orange in that set? Uh . . . no. How about freedom? Gee, no it is not. Pi? Two thumbs down.
Is C = {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } a subset of the previous set? Yup. So everything in C is also in A. Yup. Is everything in A in C? Nope. Is A bigger than C?
Well . . . let me think . . . I can't count the elements of A and C 'cause there's infinitly many. I know, I'll match them up onetoone.
Gosh . . . when I do that nothing gets left out. Sounds like they're the same size.
At 8:59 PM, Joe G said…
Of course you can match them up the numbers are totally meaningless inside of the {}. However in real life a 1 matches with a 1, a 2 matches with a 2 same numbers.
As I said, it's a journey and yet all you are doing is looking at infinity.
At 1:55 AM, Unknown said…
"Of course you can match them up the numbers are totally meaningless inside of the {}. However in real life a 1 matches with a 1, a 2 matches with a 2 same numbers.
As I said, it's a journey and yet all you are doing is looking at infinity."
Only because you brought it up. We can talk about the Goldbach Congecture if you like. Or the four colour problem. Or Hamiltonian circuits. Or what the volume generated by rotating the function f(x) = 1/x from 1 to infinity around the xaxis. Or what the surface area of that shape is. Or the area of the Sierpinski gasket.
At 7:18 AM, Joe G said…
You are looking at the destination/ infinity because I brought it up?
At 8:09 AM, Unknown said…
"You are looking at the destination/ infinity because I brought it up?"
Yup. Many times. In many posts.
Like in the post: How to determine the cardinality of sets that go to infinity.
At 8:30 AM, Joe G said…
And yet I am looking at the journey...
At 9:08 AM, Unknown said…
"And yet I am looking at the journey…"
Whatever makes you happy.
At 9:53 AM, Joe G said…
It has nothing to do with happiness. It has everything to do with what works.
At 12:00 PM, Unknown said…
"It has nothing to do with happiness. It has everything to do with what works."
Right, lets look at that. Lets take these two sets:
{2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 . . .} (the primes) and
{4, 8, 12, 16, 24 . . . }
Which has the larger cardinality?
At 7:19 AM, Joe G said…
Cantor's lazy hypothesis sez they both have the same cardinality.
And if that works for you then I feel very bad for you.
At 10:26 AM, Unknown said…
"Cantor's lazy hypothesis sez they both have the same cardinality."
Correct! Joe: 2 points.
"And if that works for you then I feel very bad for you."
Well, if you think one is larger than the other then do tell. Seriously. I picked the multiples of 4 to make the sets appear to be fairly close in number for finite sets.
At 10:32 AM, Joe G said…
One train, two counters, one number line.
One counter counts the multiples of 4 and the other counts the primes.
My guess is the primes would be counted more often, and therefor be the larger set.
At 10:49 AM, Unknown said…
"One train, two counters, one number line.
One counter counts the multiples of 4 and the other counts the primes.
My guess is the primes would be counted more often, and therefor be the larger set."
It's an interesting case isn't it? I mean it's easy enough to find out for some realtively small sets like less than 100 or 1000. But when they get bigger . . .
Let's see . . . 25 multiples of 4 less than or equal to 100, 250 multiples of 4 less than or equal to 1000.
Let's see (gotta look this up) . . . looks like 25 primes less than 100 . . . and 168 less than 1000.
Maybe I should have used the multiples of 5 or 6.
Now there is a largest known prime number. At any given moment. But it changes fairly often. Very large prime numbers are used in cryptography and data security. Lovely stuff.
At 11:18 AM, Joe G said…
I would have been wrong. 250,000 multiples of 4 between 01,000,000 and just over 78,000 primes in the same interval.
At 2:03 AM, Unknown said…
"I would have been wrong. 250,000 multiples of 4 between 01,000,000 and just over 78,000 primes in the same interval."
It's interesting isn't it?
What if I compred the multiples of 12 and the primes?
Question: is there a finite n such that {n, 2n, 3n, 4n . . . } is approximately as dense as the primes? Or do the primes always become less dense than any multiples of a fixed number . . . .
I must look at The Prime Number Theorem again . . .
At 7:08 AM, Joe G said…
No, it's not interesting...
Post a Comment
<< Home