
Now keiths sez:
What’s really funny is that according to you, any pattern that holds for finite sets also holds for infinite ones. Since changing the labels doesn’t change the cardinality of the finite set described above, then according to you it shouldn’t change the cardinality of the infinite set that I described in my first scenario.
You stupid fuck, the cardinality is NOT the same as the PATTERN. Also relabeling the elements could change the pattern. For example {1,2,3,4,...} relabeled to {2,4,6,8,...} has a pattern shift, from counting by ones to counting by twos.
The problem is you, keiths. You actually believe your refuted bullshit and use it to furtehr erect your strawman.
Not only are you “obvioulsy” wrong to claim that relabeling changes the cardinality of the infinite set — you’ve also contradicted yourself.
I didn't contradict anything. And obvioulsy you cannot demonstrate that I am wrong in what I claim.
Then keiths PROVES once and for all that he is a total fucking asshole:
Count the elements of the following sets, and give us your answers:
{0,1,2,…}
{1,2,3,…}
{7,8,9,…}
{2,4,6,…}
You dipshit. A count shows that the first set will always have one more member than the second, which will always have 6 more members than the third set. And the first three sets will have a cardinality that is greater than the fourth.
But thanks for proving that you are too stupid to follow along.
What does your “methodology” say about the cardinality of the set of natural numbers versus the set of real numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive?
My methodology says that you are a fucking jackass loser. If you want to keep asking me questions then you have to pay me. And your "proof" of infinity has been refuted well it has been expsoed as a fraud.
Nice job but be sure to keep linking to it as if it matters.
Imagine you have a countably infinite collection of objects, to which you have applied sticky labels with the numbers “1″, “2″, “3″, etc., written on them. Each label is unique; no two labels contain the same number.
Impossible to attach a sticky note to every item in an allegedly infinite set. Imagine you had a brain and some sense of decency hey that would be a huge change.
The whole problem is that there isn't any such thing as a countably infinite set of objects you dumbass. And when talking about numbers we are NOT talking about any ole arbitrary collection of objects!
How many fucking times do I have to go over this?
Tell you what keiths go find an infinite collection of objects, label them and then get back to me. Otherwise go fuck yourself and your stupid strawman.
keiths "responds":
No elements are added or removed when going from {1,2,3,…} to {2,4,6,…}.
The members, ie elements, 1,3,5,7,... are all missing in the second set. Or are you blind and stupid?
The existing elements are simply relabeled, as you just acknowledged.
Umm you cannot relabel something to an existing member's label. As I said you are obvioulsy just a clueless ass and apparently proud of it.
Yet according to you, the set loses half its elements during the relabeling process. Where do they go, Joe? Who removes them?
The positive odd integers are gone, keiths. You removed them with your ignorance and you think that ignorance means something.
You cut my list short and left out the very best ones, Joe:
Pay me or fuck off asshole. I have already refuted everything you have thrown at me.
If you think that {0,1,2,…} has one more element than {1,2,3,…}, then you think that ∞ is one greater than ∞ – 1.
Nope. I have already said infinity doesn't exist. And I don't need infinity to make my case. Any long journey will do.
Joe Math gives different answers for {0,1,10,11,100,101,…}, depending on how you interpret the labels
Again, just because you are a fucking asshole, that doesn't refute what I have claimed. And I don't even know what that emans gives different answers different answers to what?
In the set {1,3,7,13,21,31, 43,…}, the gap between the numbers increases as the elements get larger.
So what? I can deal with that.
BTW, numbers are NOT labels, keiths. If putting numbers into a set takes away their identity then you ain't doing math.
On refuting keiths' "proof" of infinity:
If you’ve refuted it, then you should be able to explain exactly where it is mistaken.
I have. You just ignore everything that doesn't bode well for you and prattle on.
And yes keiths, I do see why you laugh you are a fucking drooling moron who cannot even follow a simple concept.