keiths still proudly full of shit

-
keiths, my methodolgy is only fucked up when it is in the hands of a retard like you.  And I covered your example asshole. And no, you cannot demonstrate that it gives the wrong answerr and you sure as hell cannot demonstrate any logical inconsistencies.

And I never said that my method applies to everything. It only applies in the cases I mentioned you stupid fuck.

AGAIN for the lowlife assholes:

If one set contains all of the members of another AND contains members the other does not, then my method applies. Otherwise stay with Cantor, duh.

keiths spews:

No, your method works only if a) one set is a subset of the other,

A proper subset.

and either b) at least one of the sets is finite,

False. My method works on two infinite sets.

or c) the user doesn’t mind getting the wrong answer again and again.

False.

Then oleg the asshole chimes in:

Joe’s method obviously fails for non-integer x. Take x=0.01. He can’t compare {0,1,2,3,…} and {0.01,1.01,2.01,3.01,…} (or {−0.01,0.99,1.99,2.99,…}). The two sets have no common members.

Then you don't use my method in that case you stupid fuck. I never said, thought nor implied my method could be applied to every infinite set.

I take it none of my opponents has ever worked on anything which required muliple tools...

Newsflash- Pythagorean Theorem does NOT apply to circles!

Great oleg the asshole now sez:

Joe concedes that his method of comparing sets does not apply to the two sets mentioned above.

Concedes? It was never meant to. Only an ignorant fool would have even tried and here you and keiths are.

Then he asks:

 Since you have multiple tools at your disposal, why don’t you describe the tool with which you would compare the sizes of the sets {0,1,2,3,…} and {0+x,1+x,2+x,3+x,…}?  

Why don't you fuck yourself and tell me what logical inconsistencies and what other damage my methodology causes. Stop trying to change the subject...

BTW oleg, good luck finding an infinite number of color names for the infinite numbers- fucking dumbass.

Now oleg is running all over with the goalposts:

3. Greg also tells us that sets {0,1.01,2,3,…} and {1,2,3,…} have the same cardinality.

Wait, that first set doesn't even make any sense. What is the number after 3? the elipsis say to continue on as before, yet a pattern has not been established.

Geez oleg are you are total asshole or what?

So oleg sez:

The first is a set of all non-negative integers {0,1,2,3,…}, in which 1 is replaced with 1.01. The second is a set of all positive integers {1,2,3,4,…}.

Please show me where that format has ever been used- show that Cantor addressed it. You don't just get to pull shit from your ass and call it valid.

Well oleg could NOT do as requested, no surprise there...