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

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Counting- Jerad Finally Admits that I am Right!

-
Yessirree, it took some time but Jerad has finally opened his eyes and mind. I had posted:

Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

Yup, that is obviously true.

And if that is obvioulsy true then it follows that the set of non-negative integers has a cardinality that is greater than the set of positive even integers.

Thanks Jerad...

posted by Joe G @ 8:06 AM  

73 Comments:

  • At 9:18 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I admitted that the one count would be twice the other for any finite period of time. But I did not admit that the cardinalities were different.

    Don't take things out of context 'cause you think you can get away with it. That's dishonest and deceptive.

     

  • At 9:36 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    admitted that the one count would be twice the other for any finite period of time.

    The evidence says that you admitted one count would be twice the other for infinity.

    But I did not admit that the cardinalities were different.

    Umm the cardinalities are directly linked to teh counts.

    Don't take things out of context 'cause you think you can get away with it.

    What did I take out of context?

     

  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I could have been more clear in my statement that is true.

     

  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Your statement was very clear. Now you want to change it for whatever reason.

     

  • At 12:18 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Your statement was very clear. Now you want to change it for whatever reason."

    I didn't think someone was going to be like a elementary school boy, knowing the way I have been arguing over days and then jump up and down a point and say: BUT YOU SAID!!! NAH NAH NAH NAH

    Grow up.

    What I should have said was that your coutning technique does give different totals as long as you stop in a finite period of time. But we are talking about infinte sets. So . . . your technique breaks down AND is not the way to compare the sizes of infinite sets which is a one-to-one correpondence between the elements.

     

  • At 1:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What I should have said was that your coutning technique does give different totals as long as you stop in a finite period of time.

    It does? One set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- always and forever, for infinity even.

    And that is why you originally agreed with it, then realized you gave away the store and now have to do a little damage control. But anyway...

    But we are talking about infinte sets.

    Exactly. And as I said one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- always and forever, for infinity even.

    What part of that don't you understand?

    So . . . your technique breaks down

    Nope, you break down, not my technique.

    AND is not the way to compare the sizes of infinite sets

    It should be the only way.

    which is a one-to-one correpondence between the elements.

    That's just horse-shit mumbo-jumbo.

     

  • At 5:38 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "And that is why you originally agreed with it, then realized you gave away the store and now have to do a little damage control. But anyway…"

    No, I agree that I should have qualified my statement better. That is my fault.

    " 'But we are talking about infinte sets."

    Exactly. And as I said one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- always and forever, for infinity even."

    And that I do not agree with.

    "What part of that don't you understand?"

    I understand it. I just disagree with you.

    " 'AND is not the way to compare the sizes of infinite sets '

    It should be the only way. "

    I'm sorry that most people disagree with you. Get used to it.

    " 'which is a one-to-one correpondence between the elements.'

    That's just horse-shit mumbo-jumbo."

    And this from the person who thinks that root 2 doesn't exist and that there is a smallest number in the open interval (0, 1) but who can't produce it.

    I made a mistake in how I phrased a response, I should have been more careful. I hopefully have clarified what I meant so there is less ambiguity. Now will you own up to some of your incorrect statements. That there is no smallest number in (0, 1). That root 2 exists. That {1, ½, ⅓, ¼, . . . . } does not have a smallest element. Are you man enough?

     

  • At 5:46 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Exactly. And as I said one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- always and forever, for infinity even.

    And that I do not agree with.

    Please explain. You have every right to disagree but unless you have some sound reasoning your disagreement means nothing. So let's have it.

    And this from the person who thinks that root 2 doesn't exist...

    No one can produce it.

    ... and that there is a smallest number in the open interval (0, 1) but who can't produce it.

    I am going over that very thing with socle. Every point is the diameter of one electron. And the points on a line are uniformly packed.

    But anyway unless you explain yourself- tell how what I said cannot be true- there isn't anything else to discuss. Seriously if you can't even count then you can't do math.

     

  • At 5:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    If you disagree with:

    Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

    You have to explain why. If you cannot count then cardinalities mean nothing and the discussion is moot.

     

  • At 12:50 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    I told you many times.

    It's not the rate at which items in a set get counted.

    Your technique would say that {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } would have more elements than {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } because your 'train' travelling from 1 to the left would be counting elements in that set faster than another train starting at 1 going right on the number line at the same speed and counting the positive integers. But clearly they have the same number of elements.

    I disagree with your method because it doesn't work.

    You keep saying no one can explain what's wrong with your method. It doesn't work. It gives incorrect results.

     

  • At 7:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! What an asshole you are.

    My technique has NOTHING to do with the rate. Only a moron would say such a thing and here you are.

    Your technique would say that {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } would have more elements than {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . }

    No, it would not.

    because your 'train' travelling from 1 to the left would be counting elements in that set faster than another train starting at 1 going right on the number line at the same speed and counting the positive integers.

    My technique would NOT be applied to two different types of sets. AND my technique would say that the numbers between 1 and 0 are FINITE because there comes a point that you can no longer continue to half the number because then the point will be the same as zero- no separation can be observed.

    disagree with your method because it doesn't work.

    It doesn't work when an asshole moron attempts to use it.

    But anyway, like the coward you are you FAILED to respond to the point of this post.

    Fuck off you asshole coward.

     

  • At 8:59 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "My technique would NOT be applied to two different types of sets. AND my technique would say that the numbers between 1 and 0 are FINITE because there comes a point that you can no longer continue to half the number because then the point will be the same as zero- no separation can be observed."

    This is simply untrue. Aside from the fact that I wasn't halving to get to the next number in the sequence, you can indeed continue in the manner to which I referred indefinitely.

    Two different kinds of sets? What? The cardinality of a set has NOTHING to do with what its elements are.

    "It doesn't work when an asshole moron attempts to use it."

    Uh huh. Fine, then you tell me the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . }

    "But anyway, like the coward you are you FAILED to respond to the point of this post.

    Fuck off you asshole coward."

    I might as well. You won't listen to reasonably put objections or explanations. You fail to answer questions put to you. Your typical response is similar to those I see on an elementary school playground albeit with a bit more profanity. And my efforsts are not appreciated.

     

  • At 9:06 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "My technique would NOT be applied to two different types of sets. AND my technique would say that the numbers between 1 and 0 are FINITE because there comes a point that you can no longer continue to half the number because then the point will be the same as zero- no separation can be observed."

    This is simply untrue.

    It's very true.

    Aside from the fact that I wasn't halving to get to the next number in the sequence, you can indeed continue in the manner to which I referred indefinitely.

    That is simply untrue.

    Two different kinds of sets?

    One lies between two numbers and the other is of all positive integers.

    Apples and organges, just as I said before. IOW you are one dense asswipe.

    You won't listen to reasonably put objections or explanations.

    When someone presents a reasonably put objection or explanation, I will listen to it. However you have not done so.

    Your efforts are that of a moron, Jerad. YOU can't even count.

     

  • At 9:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

    And no one can demonstrate otherwise. All Jerad can do is act like the little whiny baby that he is.

     

  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    What's the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . }?

     

  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    However many elements it contains- count them if you are interested.

    Ooops, that's right, you can't count!

    And thanks for continuing to act like a little whiny baby- perhaps it isn't an act...

     

  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So socle agrees with me:

    Certainly any two distinct points must be separated by some distance.

    And Jerad is too stupid to grasp that, so he cannot understand why {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . } is NOT infinite.

     

  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "However many elements it contains- count them if you are interested. "

    I think {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } is obviously countably infinite like the positive integers. But you think it's finite so . . . how many elements does it have?

    "Certainly any two distinct points must be separated by some distance."

    As as the points get closer and closer together the distance gets shorter and shorter.

    The set {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } gets closer and closer to zero but it never reaches zero. It will get as close as you want sooner or later. But never zero.

     

  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

    And no one can demonstrate otherwise. All Jerad can do is act like the little whiny baby that he is.

     

  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I think {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } is obviously countably infinite like the positive integers.

    Good for you. Unfortunately you cannot prove it.

    As as the points get closer and closer together the distance gets shorter and shorter.

    Until there isn't any distance and the points blur into one.

     

  • At 4:26 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'I think {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } is obviously countably infinite like the positive integers. '

    Good for you. Unfortunately you cannot prove it."

    It's pretty simple really. Let's try counting the elements of the set:

    first element = 1

    second element = ½

    third elemtment = ⅓

    nth element = 1/n

    Can you give me an n for which there is no element of the set? Or, given some 1/n can you be sure you will count that element when determining the cardinality? Also yes. Is there a limit on n? Nope. Can I go on picking n's forever? Absolutely.

    " 'As as the points get closer and closer together the distance gets shorter and shorter.'

    Until there isn't any distance and the points blur into one"

    Only in your finite world. The rest of us can see beyond that.

     

  • At 4:30 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "And no one can demonstrate otherwise. All Jerad can do is act like the little whiny baby that he is."

    Name calling does not win the argument. And if you chose to ignore the counter arguments and instead choose to stand in a corner and shout and stamp and make a fuss that is your choice. But it doesn't make you right. And it doesn't mean you can deliver the goods.

    What is the smallest element of (0, 1)?

    What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . } ?

    What is the length of the diagonal of a unit square? Given that, as you said, the Pythagorean theorem is useful?

     

  • At 4:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! No one can see anything that small. You have no shame and no fucking clue.

    Can I go on picking n's forever?

    Nope, you will die well before forever comes around. Numbers are as finite as we are Jerad. And there comes a point between two numbers were there isn't any space between points and the points blur into one.

     

  • At 4:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Name calling does not win the argument. And if you chose to ignore the counter arguments and instead choose to stand in a corner and shout and stamp and make a fuss that is your choice.

    Fuck you asshole. You did NOT present any counter arguments. YOU are a coward and a loser.

    Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

    And no one can demonstrate otherwise. All Jerad can do is act like the little whiny baby that he is.

    Deal with that or fuck off. That bolded part is going to be my only response to you until you deal with it.

     

  • At 4:54 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Fuck you asshole. You did NOT present any counter arguments. YOU are a coward and a loser."

    I have. You just don't like or understand them.

    "Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

    And no one can demonstrate otherwise. All Jerad can do is act like the little whiny baby that he is.

    Deal with that or fuck off. That bolded part is going to be my only response to you until you deal with it."

    Again, the rate you count elements in a set has nothing to do with the cardinality of the set. I don't think you really grasp the idea.

    AND you can't seem to answer some questions:

    What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . }

    What is the smallest element of (0, 1)? Something you proposed.

    What is the length of a diagonal of a uint square?

     

  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    It has nothing to do with the rate. It has everything to do with the number of elements. I am counting the elements, Jerad. And one set will always have more elements than the other.

    Try it- start at 0 and count every non-negative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the non-negative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements- ALWAYS- as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.

    And no one can demonstrate otherwise. All Jerad can do is act like the little whiny baby that he is.

     

  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    You cannot just keep repeating your assertion and think that absolves you from being able to answer some basic questions. Nor does it mean you are right or that your challenge has not been answered. And why wouldn't you show the superiority of your system by answering:

    What is the smallest element of (0, 1)?

    What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .}

    What is the length of the diagonal of a unit square?

    Can you answer those questions? Yes or no?

     

  • At 5:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    What I am posting is not an assertion. It is a fact.

    What you are too stupid to understand that is with my methodology the rate of count and the number of elements are directly correlated, ie there is a one-to-one correspondence.

    So stick that up your ass and enjoy it.

     

  • At 5:43 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "What I am posting is not an assertion. It is a fact."

    Whatever.

    "What you are too stupid to understand that is with my methodology the rate of count and the number of elements are directly correlated, ie there is a one-to-one correspondence."

    Despite the fact that over a century of people disagree with you.

    "So stick that up your ass and enjoy it."

    Ooo, clever summing up.

    But, guess what, you still haven't answered:

    What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . }

    What is the smallest element of (0, 1)? Something you said existed.

    What is the length of the diagonal of a unit square?

     

  • At 5:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "What you are too stupid to understand that is with my methodology the rate of count and the number of elements are directly correlated, ie there is a one-to-one correspondence."

    Despite the fact that over a century of people disagree with you.

    How the fuck is that even possible when people of 100 years ago never heard my argument?

    You've been exposed, Jerad. Now run along and go play in traffic.

     

  • At 6:01 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    So you can't answer the questions.

    You can duck and dive but you can't answer the questions.

     

  • At 10:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You are right. I cannot answer your questions because there isn't any reason for me to do so.

    YOU can't even count. Either that or you think that infinity is some sort of magical equalizer.

     

  • At 12:54 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "You are right. I cannot answer your questions because there isn't any reason for me to do so."

    You can't answer the questions because you don't know how to.

    You realise now that the idea of there being a smallest element in (0, 1) is wrong but you won't admit it.

    You can't figure out the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } and you hope you can just keep dodging the question. If there is no smallest element in (0, 1) then that set is infinite and not finite as you said so you're stuck there too.

    And you can't have the Pythagorean theorem and continue to say that root 2 doesn't exist.

     

  • At 12:56 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "How the fuck is that even possible when people of 100 years ago never heard my argument?"

    Why do you think they came up with something different? Because they considered other approaches, yours included probably, and found out they didn't work.

    AND they were not mistaking the speed of counting elements with the ultimate size of the sets as you do.

     

  • At 9:21 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why do you think they came up with something different?

    Because they were ignorant cowards afraid of the mental concept of infinity.

    I would love to see how they answered my challenge.

    AND they were not mistaking the speed of counting elements with the ultimate size of the sets as you do.

    Only a dickless faggot would say that is what I do, and here you are.

    With my challenge the ultimate size is directly correlated to the rate. And obvioulsy you are too stupid to grasp that fact so you have to attack it with your ignorance.

     

  • At 9:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You can't answer the questions because you don't know how to.

    Jerad, YOU don't know how. You cannot think for yourself. All you can do is blindly repeat what others have told you.

    Good drone, Jerad.

    You realise now that the idea of there being a smallest element in (0, 1) is wrong but you won't admit it.

    There has to be a smallest element, Jerad. The definition of a number line makes it so.

    You can't figure out the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }

    I refuse to do any work for you until you pay me.

    And there still isn't any infinity in the real world. Infinity is a mental concept only.

    And you can't have the Pythagorean theorem and continue to say that root 2 doesn't exist.

    1- You cannot tell me it's exact number

    2- That has been my only point about it

     

  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Jerad, YOU don't know how. You cannot think for yourself. All you can do is blindly repeat what others have told you.'

    I can aswer all those questions. And a lot more that you can't answer.

    "There has to be a smallest element, Jerad. The definition of a number line makes it so."

    Then WHAT IS IT?

    "I refuse to do any work for you until you pay me."

    Choke.

    "And you can't have the Pythagorean theorem and continue to say that root 2 doesn't exist.

    1- You cannot tell me it's exact number

    2- That has been my only point about it "

    That because you can't handle irrational numbers, i.e. ones with non-repeating, infinite decimal expansions.

     

  • At 9:34 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yes, Jeard, you can proviode the canned answers just like a good mindless drone.

    That because you can't handle irrational numbers, i.e. ones with non-repeating, infinite decimal expansions.

    Jerad chokes.

     

  • At 9:49 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Yes, Jeard, you can proviode the canned answers just like a good mindless drone."

    And they're correct!!

    " 'That because you can't handle irrational numbers, i.e. ones with non-repeating, infinite decimal expansions. '

    Jerad chokes."

    You wish. You can't even find numbers you say exist!!

    And JoeMath can't compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . }

    In fact, JoeMath can't even offer a guess for the last one. Because, how did you put it . . . it's like comparing apples and oranges. But we're talking about the cardinalities of those sets and you can compare the cardinalities of any sets no matter what is in them.

    Oh, wait . . . except in JoeMath. I forgot. My bad. It so hard to keep track of all the things JoeMath cannot do.

     

  • At 12:08 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    From Wikipedia:

    The first proof of the existence of irrational numbers is usually attributed to a Pythagorean (possibly Hippasus of Metapontum), who probably discovered them while identifying sides of the pentagram. The then-current Pythagorean method would have claimed that there must be some sufficiently small, indivisible unit that could fit evenly into one of these lengths as well as the other. However, Hippasus, in the 5th century BC, was able to deduce that there was in fact no common unit of measure, and that the assertion of such an existence was in fact a contradiction. He did this by demonstrating that if the hypotenuse of an isosceles right triangle was indeed commensurable with a leg, then that unit of measure must be both odd and even, which is impossible. His reasoning is as follows:

    Start with an isosceles right triangle with side lengths of integers a, b, and c. The ratio of the hypotenuse to a leg is represented by c:b.

    Assume a, b, and c are in the smallest possible terms (i.e. they have no common factors).

    By the Pythagorean theorem: c^2 = a^2+b^2 = b^2+b^2 = 2b^2. (Since the triangle is isosceles, a = b).

    Since c^2 = 2b^2, c^2 is divisible by 2, and therefore even.

    Since c^2 is even, c must be even.

    Since c and b have no common factors, and c is even, b must be odd (if b were even, b and c would have a common factor of 2).

    Since c is even, dividing c by 2 yields an integer. Let y be this integer (c = 2y).

    Squaring both sides of c = 2y yields c^2 = (2y)2, or c2 = 4y^2
    .
    Substituting 4y^2 for c^2 in the first equation (c^2 = 2b^2) gives us 4y^2= 2b^2.

    Dividing by 2 yields 2y^2 = b^2.

    Since y is an integer, and 2y^2 = b^2, b^2 is divisible by 2, and therefore even.

    Since b^2 is even, b must be even.

    However, we have already asserted that b must be odd, and b cannot be both odd and even. This contradiction proves that c and b cannot both be integers, and thus the existence of a number that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers.


    Did you get that? Maybe you should read it again just to be sure.

    And this was done 2500 years ago!! You really should try and keep up.

    And, if the above is wrong then where is the mistake?

     

  • At 4:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    You don't know if your answers are correct. They cannot be proven nor disproven.

    You can't even find numbers you say exist!!

    Hey moron, if sets are collections of things- they are by definition- then how can you collect things that don't exist? How can you have a set with infinite elements? No one can collect infinite things.

    And what was the purpose of the wikipedia article?

     

  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "You don't know if your answers are correct. They cannot be proven nor disproven."

    I know my answers are correct. And accepted. And used. And proven. What have you got?

    "Hey moron, if sets are collections of things- they are by definition- then how can you collect things that don't exist? How can you have a set with infinite elements? No one can collect infinite things."

    Oh dear, JoMath can't handle infinity or abstract concepts. Let's see . . . in our scoring system thats a . . choke. Live in the past if you want. But don't force the rest of us to do the same just becuaee you can't grasp the concepts.


    "And what was the purpose of the wikipedia article?"

    You don't get it? Really? You've gone on and on about how irrational numbers don't exist and yet, somehow, strangely, 2500 years ago smart people were realising that if you had a right triangle with two equal sides then the hypotenuse came out to be a number which was not a ratio of two integers. Sorry if I'm going to fast for you. Do you need that spelt out in language a 4th grader could understand?

     

  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "You can't even find numbers you say exist!!"

    And, by last count, JoeMaths is still unable to find the smallest value in (0, 1)

    Well this is really a damaging result for JoeMaths. He said such a number existed but he has consistently be unable to produce that value.

    Phil, it's almost as if he just made that claim up.

    Bob, I can't help but agree. It was worth a try but I think his bluff has been called.

    What about his claim that no one has been able to give an exact value of root 2?

    Well, by definition, root 2 has an infinite, non-repeating decimal expansion. It's one of those pesky irrational numbers. You knnw, the ones that can't be represented as a ratio of integers. This was all figured out about 2500 years ago. But it doesn't mean root 2 doesn't exist or that we can't use it. Or that it doesn't have an exact value. Root 2 is the number that when squared gives you 2. Writing it down as a decimal expansion is impossible but it is a number. JoeMaths can't seem to handle it but mainstream mathematics has been dealing with it for a couple of millenium now.

    Wow, sounds like JoeMaths is having trouble keeping up.

    Yes well this is JoeMaths major problem. It can't deal with lots of situations and it can't come up with the goods.

     

  • At 6:06 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Dear JoeMaths,

    We'd really like to support you in showing that those bastard 'tards you think are wrong are intellectual scum. But you're not giving us much to rally around. Calling people names and dodging questions is fun and all but it doesn't really help prove that JoeMaths is the superior system.

    Why don't you just answer all the questions and prove what dummies they all are? You can do that . . . can't you? I'm only asking because there is dissention in the ranks and I'm not sure how long I can hold the line without some clear content from you.

    Thanks!!

    Artemis, chair of the Everything We Needed to Know We KNew 2500 Years Ago steering committee.

     

  • At 2:10 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "You don't know if your answers are correct. They cannot be proven nor disproven."

    And JoeMath knows because JoeMaths took a Calculus class!! But not a set theory course.

    They have been proven and scrutenised and looked at by many, many people who would just LOVE to tind a mistake.

    "Hey moron, if sets are collections of things- they are by definition- then how can you collect things that don't exist? How can you have a set with infinite elements? No one can collect infinite things."

    JoeMaths can't handle infinity. Which is why JoeMaths can't deliver the goods. JoeMaths lives in the Iron Age.

    "And what was the purpose of the wikipedia article?"

    It proves the existence of irrational numbers. I assumed, since you took a Calculus class, that you could read and understand a basic math proof from 2500 years ago. Guess I was wrong. My bad.

     

  • At 1:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dear Jerad,

    Seeing that you are too stupid to understand that the faster the rate of count means that more elements will be counted and that more elements means a greater cardinality, perhaps mathematics isn’t your thing and you just should shut up.

     

  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Seeing that you are too stupid to understand that the faster the rate of count means that more elements will be counted and that more elements means a greater cardinality, perhaps mathematics isn’t your thing and you just should shut up."

    I think your record is skipping. I keep hearing the same thing over and over again.

    You know what the real issue is? You had an idea. It was wrong but it was worth a shot. Instead of asking people what they thought, doing some work trying to figure out what other work had already been done, checking to see if your notions had already been addressed or considered . . . you just farted out your concepts and then refused to acknowledge any criticism and said that anyone who disagreed with you was a moron.

    Your background and experience in mathematics is limited. Your understanding of basic concepts is limited to flawed. You imagine there is some great conspiracy of dunces that you're fighting against when, in fact, people are doing research, applying their work, having their work scrutenised by the mathematical community.

    Time to grow up. If you want to compete then learn the rules. And, get real. You can sit in your house on your computer (whose bits and pieces were made possible by people who did understand some of the things you can't seem to grasp) and bitch and moan and whine all you like. But if you can't deliver. If you can't compete. If you fail at the first hurdle. Then . . . NO ONE is going to care or listen to you. That is the truth. Not even your heroes in ID. Not Dr Dembski. Not Dr Behe. Not GEM. No one.

    You want to prove yourself? Then DO SOME WORK. Stop whining like some 4th grader.

     

  • At 3:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    AGAIN, one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- for INFINITY you dickless wonder.

    So how the fuck am I wrong?

    BTW, coward, my methodolgy requires work whereas Cantor's does not.

     

  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "AGAIN, one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- for INFINITY you dickless wonder."

    Try sticking your fingers in your ears and stamping your feet. That works for the 4-years olds I work with.

    "So how the fuck am I wrong?"

    What, you want me to tell you AGAIN?? Jeeze louise, are you going to pay attention this time?

    Write down the positive even integers: 2, 4, 6, 8 . . .

    Count them. The first one is 2, the second one is 4, the third one is 6, etc. Oh, look, I've set up a one-to-one correspondence between the positive integers and the positive even integers. Each element of one set is UNIQUELY associated with an element of the other set. Now, lets see . . . if each element of either set is uniquely matched with an element of the other set . . .and nothing is left out of either set . . . well . . . that can only happen if . . . THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE!!!

    "BTW, coward, my methodolgy requires work whereas Cantor's does not."

    Cantor's method requires thinking outside the finite box. But hey, if you want to think inside a finite box, be my guest. But you don't get to say that people who think outside that box are wrong.

     

  • At 8:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "AGAIN, one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- for INFINITY you dickless wonder."

    Try sticking your fingers in your ears and stamping your feet. That works for the 4-years olds I work with.

    And you are copying them. Nice job.

    What, you want me to tell you AGAIN?? Jeeze louise, are you going to pay attention this time?

    Write down the positive even integers: 2, 4, 6, 8 . . .

    Count them. The first one is 2, the second one is 4, the third one is 6, etc. Oh, look, I've set up a one-to-one correspondence between the positive integers and the positive even integers.

    LoL! Strange that the set of positive integers also consists of and contains all of the integers of positive even integers AND it has memebrs that set does NOT have.

    That means only meaningless mental trickery makes a one-to-one correspondence.

    "Here look Joe. I will just make the 2 a 1, the 4 a 2 and so on."

    You assholes are pathetic.

    Cantor's method requires thinking outside the finite box.

    No, it doesn't require any thinking at all.

    But hey, if you want to think inside a finite box, be my guest.

    BHey you stupid fuck, when someone writes {1,2,3,4,...} it means that the FINITE pattern is repeated forever. IOW it is all about the finite box you dolt.

    But you don't get to say that people who think outside that box are wrong.

    When that happens, I won't. However when people think their ass is outside the box I will challenge them.

     

  • At 8:26 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    {1,2,3,4,...}

    Count them- the first 1 is 2, the first 2 is 4, the first 3 is 6-

    See what I did? I doubled my count by making a one to one correspondence with the even integers! Now I have twice the cardinality!

     

  • At 12:06 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Count them- the first 1 is 2, the first 2 is 4, the first 3 is 6-

    See what I did? I doubled my count by making a one to one correspondence with the even integers! Now I have twice the cardinality!"

    Oh oh, he's babbling again. Someone check to see if he took his meds.

    You asked AGAIN what's wrong with your counting procedure and I answered AGAIN. If you're not going to listen then why ask?

     

  • At 7:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! I am MOCKING YOU, Jerad, All you do is babble.

    I don't listen to you because you are retarded. Ya see if your methodology "works" then so does my doubling the count.

    Nice of Jerad the coward to ignore:

    Strange that the set of positive integers also consists of and contains all of the integers of positive even integers AND it has memebrs that set does NOT have.

    and

    Hey you stupid fuck, when someone writes {1,2,3,4,...} it means that the FINITE pattern is repeated forever. IOW it is all about the finite box you dolt.

    Fucking pussy...



     

  • At 8:47 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "LoL! I am MOCKING YOU, Jerad, All you do is babble.

    I don't listen to you because you are retarded. Ya see if your methodology "works" then so does my doubling the count."

    Nah, your system doesn't work. If it did it could compare the cardinalities of the postive integers and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . } But it can't.

    "Strange that the set of positive integers also consists of and contains all of the integers of positive even integers AND it has memebrs that set does NOT have."

    Doesn't mean the size of the infinite sets is different.

    "Hey you stupid fuck, when someone writes {1,2,3,4,...} it means that the FINITE pattern is repeated forever. IOW it is all about the finite box you dolt."

    It's all about infinite sets and things change.

    Fucking pussy...

     

  • At 8:50 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Cantor doesn't compare cardinalities. he just baldly declares them "equal".

    Strange that the set of positive integers also consists of and contains all of the integers of positive even integers AND it has memebrs that set does NOT have.

    Doesn't mean the size of the infinite sets is different.

    In the scenario I mentioned they have to be different sizes.

    It's all about infinite sets and things change.

    What changes? Please be specific or admit that you are a liar.

     

  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Doesn't mean the size of the infinite sets is different.'

    In the scenario I mentioned they have to be different sizes."

    Only because you can't handle infinite sets.

    " 'It's all about infinite sets and things change.'

    What changes? Please be specific or admit that you are a liar."

    I've been specific, oleg has been specific, socle has been specific. You don't listen. Since you're not going to alter your methods which can't deliver the goods there is no point in going over it all again.

    Take a real Set Theory course if you really care. I don't think you do. You're probably just doing all this arguing to create attention in your blog.

     

  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Only because you can't handle infinite sets.

    No, Jerad, YOU cannot handle infinite sets.


    What changes? Please be specific or admit that you are a liar.

    I've been specific, oleg has been specific, socle has been specific.

    Liar.

    Look if all you can do is lie then why even bother?

    And if something changed from finite to infinite then the use of elipsis would be banned, as the elipsis says what happens in the finite is extended to the infinite.

    And it is very telling that you are ignorant of that.

     

  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW asshole Jerad, olegt says that infinity is a journey and YOU can't even grasp that concept.

     

  • At 1:40 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "No, Jerad, YOU cannot handle infinite sets."

    Uh huh. If you're so good then:

    What is the smallest element in (0, 1) ?

    What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} and is it an infinite set?

    I know you can't answer those questions. But I just want to make it clear that you can't and you keep avoiding answering.

    "What changes? Please be specific or admit that you are a liar."

    It's infinitly large. Not just really, really big. Don't worry about it. That circuit in your brain seems to have been disconnected.

    "Liar."

    It's not our fault you don't get it.

    "Look if all you can do is lie then why even bother?"

    If you can't understand then stop calling people liars. Higher level mathematics can't be reduced to a 4th grade level which is where you seem stuck. But that doesn't make it wrong. It works. But you don't understand it so you think it's shit.

    "And if something changed from finite to infinite then the use of elipsis would be banned, as the elipsis says what happens in the finite is extended to the infinite."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA JoeMaths, it's not really math at all, it's more like mumbo jumbo.

    "And it is very telling that you are ignorant of that."

    :-) What a maroon.

    Is {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } and infinite set? Go on, try and answer that.

    "BTW asshole Jerad, olegt says that infinity is a journey and YOU can't even grasp that concept."

    It's just an analogy to try and get the point across to you. It didn't work obviously. I don't need the analogy. I get the math.

     

  • At 9:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What is the smallest element in (0, 1) ?

    I told you- Alpha 0- and you choked on it, as usual.

    Look Jerad, you are a liar. That is all there is to it.

    The way you respond to the points tat refute your nonsense is very telling. And strange that you cannot say what changes just because we say "infinity". And it is also very telling that you don't understand the elipsis.

    But anyway:

    Given 2 sets, A and B, if A contains all of the members of B AND has members B does not, A's cardinality has to be greater than B's.


    And the predicted unsupported and cowardly response of "Joe doesn't understand infinity", is duly noted.


    Let the flailing begin...


     

  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'What is the smallest element in (0, 1) ?'

    I told you- Alpha 0- and you choked on it, as usual."

    Onookers, please note. Joe has clearly demonstrated that he has absolutely not clue about Set Theory. In fact, he's probably just been arguing for the fun of it.

    You fucked up, big time.

    "Look Jerad, you are a liar. That is all there is to it."

    I'm very sure that you will not be able to find anyone on this planet who will agree with you on that.

    "The way you respond to the points tat refute your nonsense is very telling. And strange that you cannot say what changes just because we say "infinity". And it is also very telling that you don't understand the elipsis."

    It's not my fault or problem that you don't grasp the difference. And I'm tired of being made fun of and sworn at. IF you really want to know, which I doubt severely, then you will do some work to find out. But you don't really want to know, you don't care actually and you won't do shit to try and learn.

    "Given 2 sets, A and B, if A contains all of the members of B AND has members B does not, A's cardinality has to be greater than B's."

    True for finite sets. Not necessarily true for infinite sets. Get used to it. Or shut up.

    "And the predicted unsupported and cowardly response of "Joe doesn't understand infinity", is duly noted."

    Whew. I was getting tired of typing it.

     

  • At 9:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Onlookers, please note that Jerad is an ignorant coward spewing false accusations.

    "Given 2 sets, A and B, if A contains all of the members of B AND has members B does not, A's cardinality has to be greater than B's."

    Is true for ALL sets. It cannot ever be false.

    There isn't anything about infinity that makes it a magical equalizer. It is just the finite extended forever- which, BTW, doesn't exist. But that is another issue.

    The use of elipses means the pattern observed in this finite representation is extended without end. The ONLY thing that changes is the limit. IOW the difference in cardinality observed in the finite will just keep adding up, never to be caught.

    Infinity isn't a buffer.

     

  • At 1:26 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Onlookers, please note that Jerad is an ignorant coward spewing false accusations."

    OMG, are you channeling GEM? Wow.

    "Given 2 sets, A and B, if A contains all of the members of B AND has members B does not, A's cardinality has to be greater than B's."

    Yawn.

    "Is true for ALL sets. It cannot ever be false."

    Too bad you can't prove that. That would be something.

    "There isn't anything about infinity that makes it a magical equalizer. It is just the finite extended forever- which, BTW, doesn't exist. But that is another issue."

    JoeMaths . . . it's not really mathematics.

    By the way shouldn't you get around to comparing the cardinality of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } ? Since you're so much better at this stuff than anyone else in the last 100 years.

    "The use of elipses means the pattern observed in this finite representation is extended without end. The ONLY thing that changes is the limit. IOW the difference in cardinality observed in the finite will just keep adding up, never to be caught."

    Yawn. That's still wrong. No matter how many times you repeat it it will still be wrong.

    "Infinity isn't a buffer."

    Which is why there are different infinities. You do get that don't you? Probably not. JoeMaths is an infinity free zone.

     

  • At 9:23 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Given 2 sets, A and B, if A contains all of the members of B AND has members B does not, A's cardinality has to be greater than B's."

    "Is true for ALL sets. It cannot ever be false."

    Too bad you can't prove that. That would be something.

    I have already proven it, dumbass.

    JoeMaths . . . it's not really mathematics.

    Why, because infinity and forever are mental constructs that really do not exist? Are you really that retarded?

    The use of elipses means the pattern observed in this finite representation is extended without end. The ONLY thing that changes is the limit. IOW the difference in cardinality observed in the finite will just keep adding up, never to be caught."

    That's still wrong.

    So you say yet cannot demonstrate.

    Strange that you jump on me for not supporting my claims and yet you never support yours.

    IOW you are just a bald assertion coward.

    Which is why there are different infinities.

    That is my entire point, moron.

     

  • At 9:33 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I have already proven it, dumbass. "

    Funny that you're the only one who thinks so.

    " 'JoeMaths . . . it's not really mathematics.'

    Why, because infinity and forever are mental constructs that really do not exist? Are you really that retarded?"

    You could say the same about imaginary numbers but they are used everyday in industry. But you wouldn't know that 'cause you can't be bothered to learn some real mathematics beyond a 4th grade level.

    "So you say yet cannot demonstrate."

    I'm just trying of trying and you not getting it. Or saying you don't get it. You care more about winning the argument that what works.

    " 'Which is why there are different infinities. '

    That is my entire point, moron."

    But not the ones you think.

     

  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Funny that you're the only one who thinks so.

    Funny no one can demonstrate that I am wrong.

    So perhaps you should fuck off until you can actually support your cowardly bullshit.

     

  • At 1:21 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Funny no one can demonstrate that I am wrong."

    We have. You refuse to understand the arguments. Fortunately, your understanding is not required. Enjoy Iron Age mathematics. Good luck developing transistors. And slide rules.

    "So perhaps you should fuck off until you can actually support your cowardly bullshit."

    Whatever. Perhaps you should grow some balls and learn to be a real man and admit when you're wrong.

    But you won't.

     

  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Jerad just repeating your bald assertions does not prove I am wrong.

    Only a total moron couldn't understand that the set of non-negative integers contains all of the non-negative even integers AND has the positive odd integers left, and here you are.

    And when I am wrong I do admit it. However you asswipes don't get to just baldly assert that I am. Especially when I have proven that i am correct.

     

  • At 2:16 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "LoL! Jerad just repeating your bald assertions does not prove I am wrong."

    Repeating your incorrect and unsupported views don't make them right.

    "Only a total moron couldn't understand that the set of non-negative integers contains all of the non-negative even integers AND has the positive odd integers left, and here you are."

    So, why can't you handle comparing the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . .} and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . } ? You know you can't. And you won't admit it. And you keep thinking you can bring up things you claim I haven't dealt with as a defense. But, even if I have avoided dealing with things (which I disagree with) that is NOT an excuse to avoid a sensible question about our methods. But that's the game you play. And it gets you nowhere. Except highter up the 'site visit' stats. And if that's your goal . . . then you are a a complete liar.

    Best to just answer some questions. How do the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓ ¼ . . . . } compare?

    "And when I am wrong I do admit it. However you asswipes don't get to just baldly assert that I am. Especially when I have proven that i am correct."

    I'd like to believe that. Really I would. But I've seen no evidence that you EVER admit that you're wrong. Sorry.

     

  • At 3:58 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "LoL! Jerad just repeating your bald assertions does not prove I am wrong."

    You're not addressing questions and challenges to your views undercuts your hubris though.

    "Only a total moron couldn't understand that the set of non-negative integers contains all of the non-negative even integers AND has the positive odd integers left, and here you are."

    And you will say I haven't addressed that issue when I have. Over and over and over again. BUT you have not addressed AT ALL how to compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }. Because you can't. And you're not even man enough to admit it.

    "And when I am wrong I do admit it. However you asswipes don't get to just baldly assert that I am. Especially when I have proven that i am correct."

    hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah You have presented nothing at all like a proof. Whereas I gave you a proof that an irrational number exists (root 2 as it turns out) and you couldn't even understand what I'd posted. OR why I'd posted it.

    When have you admitted that you were wrong? I'm curious.

     

  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Repeating your incorrect and unsupported views don't make them right.

    I have supported them. Just because YOU are too stupid to understand my posts doesn't mean I haven't supported my claims.

    "Only a total moron couldn't understand that the set of non-negative integers contains all of the non-negative even integers AND has the positive odd integers left, and here you are."

    So, why can't you handle comparing the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . .} and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . } ?

    Typical cowardly non-response.

    You're not addressing questions and challenges to your views undercuts your hubris though.

    Actually your failure to grasp anything undercuts everything you have posted.

    You have presented nothing at all like a proof.

    Well only a moron would think that the set of non-negative integers does not contain the set of non-negative even integers AND also contains the positive odd integers.

    My proof is the number line. And you are a moron.

     

  • At 6:05 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I have supported them. Just because YOU are too stupid to understand my posts doesn't mean I haven't supported my claims."

    Then why can't you compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . .} and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . } ? The world waits.

    " 'So, why can't you handle comparing the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . .} and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . } ? "

    Typical cowardly non-response."

    Typical cowardly non-response from you. Not even man enough to admit you can't deal with the situation.

    "Well only a moron would think that the set of non-negative integers does not contain the set of non-negative even integers AND also contains the positive odd integers."

    It doesn't mean the set don't have the same cardinality however. You just don't get it. You should stop expecting everyone else to revert to the Iron Age. If you want to iive there that's up to you.

    "My proof is the number line. And you are a moron."

    Okay, compare these two sets which have positions on the number line: {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } How do there cardinalities compare?

    Instead of just ignoring the question why not actually be a man and address it?

     

  • At 1:50 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    Still haven't even tried to compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }

     

Post a Comment

<< Home