Note to keiths on Arbitrary Mapping

Keiths is quite the ignorant ass. So I will explain it for him
Ya see keiths when we say that one set is a subset of another we do NOT align them with just any member of the other set. For example take two sets:
A={0,1,2,3,...100} and B={1,2,3,4,...100}. Set B is a proper subset of A and it aligns starting with the 1 from set B aligning with the 1 from set A. And from there every number in set B aligns with the SAME number in set A and you can then see that niothing from set B aligns with the 0 from set A.
However when you take away the 100 from both sets for some reason, ie arbitrary, the alignments starts with each sets first element and you get a onetoone corresponce of elements but not a onetoone relation wrt numbers. IOW it's as if you are moving the starting point of one back to meet the starting point of the other just so you can get them to measure up to each other.
That is as if one person has one leg shorter than the others and you say "No they are the same size because I can arbitrarily add something to the bottom of this foot to make the legs the same length". No, all you are doing is making the distance to the ground the same. The legs are still different lengths.
BTW asshole I went back to clarify my post because you assholes totally misrepresented it. We were talking about equal SIZES. My fault for assuming that loser assholes like you and Neil could actually follow along.
And the assface continues:
Your OP doesn't explain anything, as usual. And my method reveals the truth, not nonsensical answers. Your posts are nonsensical answers, keiths.
Keiths is quite the ignorant ass. So I will explain it for him
Ya see keiths when we say that one set is a subset of another we do NOT align them with just any member of the other set. For example take two sets:
A={0,1,2,3,...100} and B={1,2,3,4,...100}. Set B is a proper subset of A and it aligns starting with the 1 from set B aligning with the 1 from set A. And from there every number in set B aligns with the SAME number in set A and you can then see that niothing from set B aligns with the 0 from set A.
However when you take away the 100 from both sets for some reason, ie arbitrary, the alignments starts with each sets first element and you get a onetoone corresponce of elements but not a onetoone relation wrt numbers. IOW it's as if you are moving the starting point of one back to meet the starting point of the other just so you can get them to measure up to each other.
That is as if one person has one leg shorter than the others and you say "No they are the same size because I can arbitrarily add something to the bottom of this foot to make the legs the same length". No, all you are doing is making the distance to the ground the same. The legs are still different lengths.
BTW asshole I went back to clarify my post because you assholes totally misrepresented it. We were talking about equal SIZES. My fault for assuming that loser assholes like you and Neil could actually follow along.
And the assface continues:
Joe’s subset method can’t even show that {knife, fork} and {cup, saucer} have the same cardinality.The subset method isn't applicable to those and neither are infinite sets you fucking asshole.
His “count the leftovers” method gives nonsensical answers when dealing with infinite sets, as the OP explains.
Your OP doesn't explain anything, as usual. And my method reveals the truth, not nonsensical answers. Your posts are nonsensical answers, keiths.
22 Comments:
At 6:31 AM, Rich Hughes said…
Poor Chubbs is changing the example. Did Oleg's exampe end in ...100} or ...}, Chubbs?
At 6:39 AM, Joe G said…
LoL! It wasn't oleg's example you stupid faggot.
And I did NOT change the example. It's called making a point by using an example.
At 6:44 AM, Rich Hughes said…
But that example doesn't apply to Oleg's, so it is unrelated, and you're still wrong, child.
At 6:48 AM, Joe G said…
I wasn't discussing oleg's example you stupid piece of shit.
What I posted applies to the example at hand. And if you could comprehend what I posted you would see that. So obviously you have other issues.
At 6:57 AM, Rich Hughes said…
Oh right, red herring / nonsequitur. A very sophisticated diversion you've got there, Cupcake!
At 7:13 AM, Joe G said…
In what way is it a red herring/ nonsequitur?
It wasn't oleg's example you fucking moron. HenryJ is the one who posted it.
As I have been saying you are just an ignorant piece of shit.
At 7:16 AM, Rich Hughes said…
Oleg's example highlights your ignorance of set theory. You got his question wrong (and it was a yes/no question!). Poor chubs!
At 7:17 AM, Joe G said…
And not only that, his example is fully represented in the post.
As I said, obvioulsy you have other issues.
At 7:18 AM, Joe G said…
Please post oleg's example. My bet is you don't know what it is because you are a moron piece of shit eater.
At 7:23 AM, Joe G said…
oleg's example and question pertained to whether or not a set can be a superset of itself.
The answer is no because it is an improper superset oleg said terminology matters.
At 7:54 AM, Rich Hughes said…
"However when you take away the 100 from both sets for some reason, ie arbitrary, the alignments starts with each sets first element and you get a onetoone corresponce of elements but not a onetoone relation wrt numbers."
Idiot  it's not "taking 100 from both sets" it's "sets that terminate at 100 vs sets that go to infinity"
At 7:55 AM, Joe G said…
So that's it then?
At 7:57 AM, Joe G said…
You fucking moron you are taking the 100 away and just having the set end in ...
Are you really that stupid?
Strange that you say it's not taking the 100 away and then you demonstrate that someone is taking the 100 away.
At 8:00 AM, Rich Hughes said…
Go back to basics, chubs, learn what the notation means. Oh wait, you have your own definitions, right!?
At 8:07 AM, Joe G said…
LoL! Richie gets his ignorance exposed and once again reverts to false accusations.
At 8:10 AM, Joe G said…
So it wasn't oleg's example and Richie is still cannot address the explanation offered in the OP.
Life is good...
At 8:11 AM, Rich Hughes said…
Your phrase "However when you take away the 100 from both sets for some reason" means "remove the member '100' from both sets", you idiot!
At 8:17 AM, Joe G said…
Yes I know. And that is the difference between the two. One has "100" in both sets and one does not.
To make a finite set infinite all one has to do is remove the number after the (last set of) ...
At 9:15 AM, socle said…
Hey Joe,
The problem with your system is that you are going to run into contradictions. Let's assume {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} have different cardinalities.
Now what should the cardinality of the set {0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, ...} be? It should be the same as one of the above, shouldn't it? Which one?
Cantor would say all three of these sets are the same size. If you disagree, you are going to have a hard time keeping everything consistent.
At 10:25 AM, Joe G said…
I say just can cardinality wrt infinite sets. The main reason is they cannot be measured. And if you have two things that cannot be measured then you cannot tell if they are the same size of not.
That said, if you look at a venn diagram of the two sets {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} like we have with a subset comparison, then one could easily see that the two sets are not the same size except there would be a sideways/ horizontal parabola as opposed to circles.
You would still have one parabola starting at one point and the other starting at another point.
Also do you think that the cardinality of the set of all whole numbers (positive and negative) is the same as as the set for only positive? That doesn't make any sense as obvioulsy one set is twice as big as the other. I believe that is what Cantor was saying when he said some infinite cardinalities are greater than others.
But anyway, look at the alleged hotel paradox an infinite number of rooms with an infinite number of people. Then allegedly another person comes to check in but we already have all the people in the hotel rooms! Meaning it is just made up nonsense.
At 2:29 AM, Unknown said…
"Also do you think that the cardinality of the set of all whole numbers (positive and negative) is the same as as the set for only positive? That doesn't make any sense as obvioulsy one set is twice as big as the other. I believe that is what Cantor was saying when he said some infinite cardinalities are greater than others."
You really don't understand Set Theory.
Sure, some infinite sets are bigger than others. Some are countably infinite and some are uncountably infinite.
"But anyway, look at the alleged hotel paradox an infinite number of rooms with an infinite number of people. Then allegedly another person comes to check in but we already have all the people in the hotel rooms! Meaning it is just made up nonsense."
You really don't understand Set Theory or mathematics.
Did you really take a course in Set Theory? Or did you just read a book? Which book was it? Did you do all the exercises and problems? Did you check your answers with a math professor?
Why don't you ask Dr Dembski about your views of infinite sets? Go on.
At 7:30 AM, Joe G said…
Jerad,
Fuck you and your false accusations.
Post a Comment
<< Home