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

Friday, June 14, 2013

keiths, STILL a Lying Piece-of-Shit Asshole

-
keiths is a fucking liar and coward. He is too afraid to come here even though my blog is open to him. Now he spews more lies and flase accusations:


Joe,
You are making the same mistakes again and again.

Fuck you. YOU are a liar and a moron.

And as I said one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- always and forever, for infinity even.
 
“Always” means “at every point in time”. Every point in time is finite. Infinity is not a point.
Every point in time FOREVER. Infinity is a journey you ignorant ass.

At every finite point in time, the Joe Train will have picked up roughly twice as many natural numbers as positive even integers. So what? You can’t generalize that result to infinity, because infinity is not a point. The train will never reach it.
AGAIN, one set will ALWAYS be greater than the other- for INFINITY you dickless wonder.

You also have some very odd ideas about time and sets.
Coming from you that is meaningless drivel.

You seem to think that finite sets, if they are growing and will never stop growing, are already infinite.

Nope. That thought never crossed my mind. YOU are just a strawman creating coward.

You also seem unable to think about infinite sets in non-temporal terms.

LoL! YOU seem to think that your lies and false accusations actually mean something.
 
 
 
  The set of natural numbers is static, Joe. All of the numbers are already there. The set is not growing, and there is no “current largest element” in it.
olegt said that infinity is a journey. Obvioulsy you disagree with him and every other knowledgeable mathematician. Perhaps you should learn what infinity is. It ain't a destination, it's a journey.

And for FSM’s sake, set theory is a branch of mathematics, not physics.
LoL! That is your "argument"?

Cantor’s ignorance of relativity does not invalidate his work in the slightest, except in your fevered imagination.
Cantor's "work" wrt infinite and countable sets is total useless nonsense.

posted by Joe G @ 9:53 AM  

61 Comments:

  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Cantor's "work" wrt infinite and countable sets is total useless nonsense."

    Any you know this because you took a Calculus course?

    How many math classes have you taken beyond Calculus? In your Calculus class did you cover Taylor and Maclaurin series? Those are inifinite series by the way which lay the groundwork for Fourier Analysis which is widely used in engineering. Did that all just pass you by?

     

  • At 5:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Why would Keith post here? You often censor posts and even change your blogs history to support your current lies. He's obviously going to pick more honest venues.

     

  • At 7:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Any you know this because you took a Calculus course?

    I know that because no one uses it for anything.

     

  • At 7:32 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Why would Keith post here?

    He wouldn't because he is a coward.

    You post but you never say anything beyond spewing false accusations and pathetic lies.

     

  • At 7:33 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

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

    Cantor loses.

     

  • At 1:58 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I know that because no one uses it for anything."

    JoeMaths, all knowing, all seeing, the only authority you'll ever need.

     

  • At 1:22 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 2:48 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."

    Seeing as how I don't mistake the rate of counting with the total and that I have an MS in mathematics and over a decade of teaching mathematics experience and that my methods can handle cardinal numbers and irrational numbers and that my approach isn't over 2500 years old and that I know there is no smallest value in (0, 1) perhaps you should reconsider your position.

     

  • At 3:31 PM, Blogger Joe G 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.


    Seeing as how I don't mistake the rate of counting with the total

    LoL! The rate and the total go hand in hand, Jerad.

    that my methods can handle cardinal numbers

    Umm YOU don't have any methods. YOU jyst blindly follow other people's methods. And their methods don't handle cardinal numbers very well.

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

    Keep choking on that, asswipe.

     

  • At 4:47 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "LoL! The rate and the total go hand in hand, Jerad."

    Only in JoeMath world I'm afraid. The rest of us prefer the 21st century.

    "Umm YOU don't have any methods. YOU jyst blindly follow other people's methods. And their methods don't handle cardinal numbers very well."

    And, of course, you ARE much better at that aren't you? For instance, you can compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .}. Oh, wait, my bad. You CAN'T compare them. Because . . . your method doesn't work.

    You can't just swear and bluster. You have to produce the goods. Which, you can't.

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

    Funny, I never thought dicks had anything to do with it. But, maybe in JoeMaths they are important. That sounds kind of ewwww to me.

    "Keep choking on that, asswipe."

    Well, funnily enough, I'm not. I can a least answer a challenge you proposed which you cannot answer: what is the smallest element of (0, 1)? So, truth be told, I"m good.

    And there was that issue about dimensions of points and midpoints which you didn't grasp. Along with most of mathematics.

    Shall I bring up your denial of irrational numbers as well?

    JoeMaths, RIP.

     

  • At 8:07 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! The rate and the total go hand in hand, Jerad.

    Only in JoeMath world I'm afraid.

    So in the real world when one counter counts every second and another counts every other second, the totals will be the same or are you just an ignorant asshole?

    And AGAIN you fucking moron, irrational numbers don't have an exact numeric representation. THAT has been my only claim about them.

    That you have to fuck that up in order to make some points just proves that you are a mental midget.

     

  • At 12:01 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "So in the real world when one counter counts every second and another counts every other second, the totals will be the same or are you just an ignorant asshole?"

    There you go thinking of everything like it's finite again. And not able to handle the obvious one-to-one correspondence that connects every positivie integer with a positive even integer. Which can only happen if the sets are the same size. No counting.

    "And AGAIN you fucking moron, irrational numbers don't have an exact numeric representation. THAT has been my only claim about them."

    No, I distinctly remember you saying that root 2 doesn't exist because 2 is a prime number. Would you care to modify that statement? You're allowed.

    "That you have to fuck that up in order to make some points just proves that you are a mental midget."

    Sorry if you misrepresented your own views. Why don't you try again then. And why don't you work on finding the smallest element in (0, 1).

    And did you figure out how to compare the cardinalities of the integers and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} Strange how you keep avoiding that one. Having trouble figuring out how fast you're counting the set of fractions? Maybe you should use a technique that doesn't have that problem.

     

  • At 7:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    There you go thinking of everything like it's finite again.

    What changes? Please be specific.

    No, I distinctly remember you saying that root 2 doesn't exist because 2 is a prime number.

    That's right- there isn't any exact NUMBER for teh square root of 2. And YOU have been unable to produce one.

    All of that said, the pattern that is represented in the finite is extended to the infinite. That alone proves that nothing changes just because we switched from finite to infinite.

    However when you see "infinite" you start drooloing and lose all sense of everything. And somehow you think that helps you.

    No Jerad, infinity is NOT a magical equalizer.

    Let A = all non-negative even integers

    Let B = all positive odd integers

    Let C = all non-negative integers

    A + B = C where neither A nor B = 0.

    So how can A=B=C? It's impossible unless you are a moron.

     

  • At 8:43 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "All of that said, the pattern that is represented in the finite is extended to the infinite. That alone proves that nothing changes just because we switched from finite to infinite."

    On the contrary, it changes everything.

    "However when you see "infinite" you start drooloing and lose all sense of everything. And somehow you think that helps you."

    Not at all, I follow a set of rules that work.

    "A + B = C where neither A nor B = 0."

    Well the union of sets A and B gives you C.

    "So how can A=B=C? It's impossible unless you are a moron."

    The sets aren't equal but their cardinalities are.

     

  • At 8:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    All of that said, the pattern that is represented in the finite is extended to the infinite. That alone proves that nothing changes just because we switched from finite to infinite.

    On the contrary, it changes everything.

    Nothing changes. You are lying.

    The sets aren't equal but their cardinalities are.

    According to A+B=C they cannot be.

     

  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Nothing changes. You are lying."

    Just because you can't handle infinite sets doesn't mean you're right.

    " 'The sets aren't equal but their cardinalities are.'

    According to A+B=C they cannot be."

    JoeMaths, an infinity free zone.

     

  • At 9:37 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Just because you can't handle infinite sets doesn't mean you're right.

    Jerad chokes.

    Come on Jerad, what changes?

     

  • At 10:49 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "
    You post but you never say anything beyond spewing false accusations and pathetic lies."

    No Joe, you've been caught altering your blog and you don't let all comments through, so it's all true I'm afraid. But this is what creationists do, try and control the conversation.

     

  • At 10:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You post but you never say anything beyond spewing false accusations and pathetic lies.

    So what does Richie do? Prove I am right, of course.

    Richie, I allow all comments that follow MY blog's rules. Don't blame me because evoTARDs cannot post anything of substance nor stay on-topic.

    Ya see, asswipe, by not staying on-topic it is you who tries to control the conversation. You lack self-awareness. And you think that you invented "cupcake" and "BWAAAAHAAHAAHAHHAA"- you are a legend in your own little-bitty mind.

     

  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    You often censor posts

    Please list one post that was on-topic that I did not allow through.

    and even change your blogs history to support your current lies.

    YOU are the liar Richie. YOU did NOT invent "cupcake" as a nickname. You have no claim to it whatsoever. And yet you act as if you do.

    He's obviously going to pick more honest venues.

    He hasn't picked an honest venue yet.

     

  • At 11:10 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Bwahahaha. LOL chubs. You went back and changed an old post to pretend you used a phrase on this blog first (which you didn't. You got caught, because you're not bright enough to know how the internet works.

    Poor old chubs, always being caught out by things he doesn't understand.

    You are comedy, Joe. Nothing more. Live with it.

     

  • At 11:17 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richie,

    YOU are the liar Richie. YOU did NOT invent "cupcake" as a nickname. You have no claim to it whatsoever. And yet you act as if you do.

    Live with that, asshole.

     

  • At 11:24 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "YOU did NOT invent "cupcake" as a nickname"

    I don't believe I claimed I did, and have actually said I didn't invent it. Whoops, Cupcake.

    But you were so upset you went back and changed an old post. How pathetic is that. I actually feel bad for you. Wanna be bully, found out fatty.

     

  • At 11:26 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then why are you acting as if you invented it, cupcake?

    You're acting as if I never used nor heard of it it before you came along.

    YOU are so upset that I took what you used and used it effectively against you. And it made you cry and stomp your feet.

     

  • At 11:31 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Then why are you acting as if you invented it"


    Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    I believe it was pointed out that you're so slow that all you do is swear (badly) and reuse the jibes directed against you. Which is true, You are Slow, unimaginative and bad and swearing.

    And this bothered you so much you went back and changed an old post. And got caught, because as we already mentioned, you're not very bright.


    Poor chubsy-wubsy! Mash that keyboard!

     

  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Please list one post that was on-topic that I did not allow through."


    DUH. because they're not le through, I can't see them and they're not recorded.

     

  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    because they're not le through, I can't see them and they're not recorded.

    At least we now know it wasn't one of your posts.

     

  • At 12:22 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I believe it was pointed out that you're so slow that all you do is swear (badly) and reuse the jibes directed against you.

    But the jibes actually work when I use them against you. And it ain't like I have never used those jibes on other people before I had ever heard of you.

    And AGAIN, if you didn't invent those terms, then you are admitting that you are unimaginative and slow.

    IOW once again everything has been pointed out to Richie ReTARDo, cupcake at large, but it is a given that he won't be able to grasp any of it.

     

  • At 12:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To recap-

    I reuse jibes, phrases and terms to mock my opponents who reuse them because they are dull and unimaginative.

     

  • At 12:32 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    They work to get laughs at your expense, Joe. Nothing more.

    Joe gets insulted. Joe is upset, Joe copies insult. We've seen it elebenty times.

    You are terrible at swearing. Really bad. This bad:
    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/online_gaming


    So why did you go back and change an old post, Chubs? This should be funny...

     

  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "To recap-

    I reuse jibes, phrases and terms to mock my opponents who reuse them because they are dull and unimaginative."

    Oh - so close!

    Fix: You reuse jibes, phrases and terms to mock your opponents because YOU are dull and unimaginative.

     

  • At 12:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Exactly!

    YOU reuse jibes because you are dull and unimaginative.

    YOU admitted that YOU did NOT invent "cupcake" as a nickname.

     

  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LoL! Richie, you and your limp noodle cannot insult me.

    And it bothers you that it works when I use it against you.

    Sweet...

     

  • At 12:52 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, sweetheart, I don't reuse content just directed at me back at the person who just said it. That would be just tragic - epically Gallien.

    When you do this, we can see how much it uspets you, so we use these phrases more, because your meltdowns are funny and you deserve it because you're not a nice person.

     

  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I don't reuse content just directed at me back at the person who just said it.

    So what? I take it that you don't understand what "mocking" means.

    And you chumps can see only what your little minds allow you to see. From here it is obvious the meltdowns are all yours.

    YOU are the assholes who cannot support your position. YOU are teh assholes who don't even appear to understand what the "theory" of evolution proposes.

    But anyway, keep spewing and I will keep mocking.

     

  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Richie, cupcake, your posts don't have any content, so how can I reuse it?

     

  • At 1:49 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Content: something else you don't understand - and yet you can calculate CSI ;-)

    Poor old chubs, back to not promoting posts. Keith is correct to stay at the far more honest and more widely read TSZ.

     

  • At 5:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Content: Something that is always missing from Richie's posts.

    BTW you wouldn't know an honest forum if it bit you in the ass and keiths doesn't post on one.

     

  • At 1:30 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Come on Jerad, what changes?"

    It's infinity. DUH!! Please TRY and keep up.

    Oh, wait, I forget. You don't get the difference between something infinitly large and a really big finite set. Your brain just doesn't work that way. Might as well give it up. Not only has the situation been explained to you many, many times but you just don't get it. And, to make it all worse you don't listen. You're too lazy to do work to try and understand. You react like a 4th grade bully. You can't handle being wrong. You swear and seem obssessed with genitalia.

    You're main strategy is just to say everyone else is wrong and then when they give up trying to explain you say you won.

    JoeMaths, doing things the very, very, very old fashioned way. An infinity and real number free zone.

     

  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Come on Jerad, what changes?

    It's infinity. DUH!!

    So what? What changes?

    You don't get the difference between something infinitly large and a really big finite set.

    So you have to lie because you cannot explain the difference. Got it.

    Jerad the wanker faggot.

     

  • At 4:58 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'It's infinity. DUH!! '

    So what? What changes?"

    If you don't get the difference then you'll never understand Cantor's work. Not everything can be reduced to a 4th grade level.

    " 'You don't get the difference between something infinitly large and a really big finite set. '

    So you have to lie because you cannot explain the difference. Got it."

    hahahahahahahhahahahahah I don't have to lie. I just have to let you show you're inability to grasp the concepts. And you have done that beautifully. Thanks.

    "Jerad the wanker faggot."

    Does it really make you feel better to call people names? Do you miss primary school when that was the way to win arguments? It's not really working now is it? Not with people who can think and expand their intellectual horizons. We don't really care what names you call us because we know you can't compete. You can't handle things. You can't answer some questions. Some technical questions.

    You should really focus on answering some mathematical questions. Your predilictons for reducing disagreements to profanity regairding genitalia is really, really boring and juvenile. And it makes it less likely that anyone will take you seriously.

    But you won't do that. Because, truth be told, you don't care. You like the arguing and the name calling. But understanding mathematics? You don't really give a shit.

     

  • At 9:48 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Fuck you Jerad. It ain't my fault that you are unable to think for yourself and cannot support your bullshit.

    And if you cannot grasp infinity, which obviously you can't, then don't ask me any other questions.

    Infinity doesn't change anything Jerad. The set of non-negative integers will ALWAYS contain all of the members as the set of non-negative even integers AND it will have as many members again that the set of non-negative even integers does not.

    IOW for infinity one set will have the other set's members covered one-on-one and it will have members that the other set cannot cover.

    Unfortunately you are too stupid to grasp any of that.

     

  • At 1:15 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Fuck you Jerad. It ain't my fault that you are unable to think for yourself and cannot support your bullshit."

    I can actually. I explained it to my 11-year old son and he understood why a one-to-one correspondence was the right way to compare the cardinality of sets. It's not my problem if you can't.

    "Infinity doesn't change anything Jerad. The set of non-negative integers will ALWAYS contain all of the members as the set of non-negative even integers AND it will have as many members again that the set of non-negative even integers does not."

    The fact that you think "infinity doesn't change anything" just shows how much you don't get it.

    "IOW for infinity one set will have the other set's members covered one-on-one and it will have members that the other set cannot cover."

    Yawn. What about sets that have little or no overlap? Like 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} ? I know you can't handle that situation but I just want anyone else to just happens to read this thread to know that.

    "Unfortunately you are too stupid to grasp any of that."

    Yawn.

     

  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Infinity doesn't change anything Jerad. The set of non-negative integers will ALWAYS contain all of the members as the set of non-negative even integers AND it will have as many members again that the set of non-negative even integers does not."

    Infinity changes nothing eh. Then you'll have to agree with the following: find a one-to-one correspondence between {1, 2, 3} and {2, 4, 6}

    1 <-> 2

    2 <-> 4

    3 <-> 6

    And then add 4 to the first set and 8 to the second set. You add the correspondence

    4 <-> 8

    AND do that forever. Adding one element at a time to each set and 'matching' them up. As the values get bigger and bigger each set will ALWAYS have the same size as the other one.

    And if you disagree with that then where is it wrong? Please be specific. This is a new question so you can't say you've already answered it. I'm merely taking a finite case and extending it forever, creating two equal sized sets at every step. Eventually I will get to any positive integer you wish to name. And eventually I will get to any positive even integer you care to name. And every positive integer will be 'linked' with exactly one positive even integer. Likewise, every positive even integer will be uniquely linked with a positive integer. Nothing will get left out.

    And if your imagination can't extend to infinity, if you say that process will end when we all die and therefore I haven't proven my case then you will have shown, again, that you cannot handle infinity.

     

  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    The set of non-negative integers will ALWAYS contain all of the members as the set of non-negative even integers AND it will have as many members again that the set of non-negative even integers does not.

    IOW for infinity one set will have the other set's members covered one-on-one and it will have members that the other set cannot cover.

    Unfortunately you are too stupid to grasp any of that.

    THAT is where you are wrong, Jerad. Dumbass.

     

  • At 9:16 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What about sets that have little or no overlap? Like 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} ?

    Jerad, you ignorant coward. You don't even undersatnd infinity so we have to START there.

    Ya see the set of non-negative integers will ALWAYS contain all of the members as the set of non-negative even integers AND it will have as many members again that the set of non-negative even integers does not.

    IOW for infinity one set will have the other set's members covered one-on-one and it will have members that the other set cannot cover.

    Unfortunately you are too stupid to grasp any of that.

     

  • At 9:26 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "The set of non-negative integers will ALWAYS contain all of the members as the set of non-negative even integers AND it will have as many members again that the set of non-negative even integers does not.

    IOW for infinity one set will have the other set's members covered one-on-one and it will have members that the other set cannot cover.

    Unfortunately you are too stupid to grasp any of that."

    Joe is right and 100 years of mathematicians are wrong. Got it.

    " 'What about sets that have little or no overlap? Like 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} ?'

    Jerad, you ignorant coward. You don't even undersatnd infinity so we have to START there."

    Does that mean you're not going to compare the sets?

    "Ya see the set of non-negative integers will ALWAYS contain all of the members as the set of non-negative even integers AND it will have as many members again that the set of non-negative even integers does not.

    IOW for infinity one set will have the other set's members covered one-on-one and it will have members that the other set cannot cover.

    Unfortunately you are too stupid to grasp any of that."

    I guess you're not going to try and compare {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } Too bad. I was looking forward to hearing say something. Oh well.

     

  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Joe is right and 100 years of mathematicians are wrong.

    Obvioulsy I am right. However I don't know about that other part. Can you prove it?

    And strange that you cannot demonstrate that I am wrong...

     

  • At 1:09 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Obvioulsy I am right. However I don't know about that other part. Can you prove it?"

    Which part would you like me to prove?

    "And strange that you cannot demonstrate that I am wrong…"

    Let's just focus on something you've choked on so many times I can't even count them.

    Compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . .} and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } It should be easy. But you never get around to dealing with it. You've had various excuses but you've never answered the question. I don't think you can. Not with JoeMaths anyway. But you're not mature enough to admit it.

     

  • At 1:21 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    Seeing that you don't understand infinity there isn't anything to discuss.

    Seeing taht you are too stupid to understand that the set of non-negative integers contains all of the non-negative even integers and has the odd integers unmatched, you are too stupid to grasp anything.

     

  • At 1:55 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Seeing that you don't understand infinity there isn't anything to discuss."

    Now, a mature person, coming up against someone who had a different point of view would want to try and understand the contrary position. As I have done with you. But you, just can't rise to that level of maturity. Oh well.

    "Seeing taht you are too stupid to understand that the set of non-negative integers contains all of the non-negative even integers and has the odd integers unmatched, you are too stupid to grasp anything."

    Since you haven't been able to grasp the counter arguments that have been brought forward over many days . . . is there any point in continuing this conversation?

     

  • At 2:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    I understand the standard point of view. It is wrong for the reasons provided.

    And your "counter arguments" amount to repeating the same tripe that I am refuting.

    Your "reasoning" is as faulty as Cantor's and all you do is keep repeating it.

    You haven't demonstrated any understanding of infinity. You do not understand that it is a journey.

    And no, there hasn't been any point to this conversation for many days. Did you really think that just repeating the same ole claptrap was going to change my mind?

     

  • At 3:04 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I understand the standard point of view. It is wrong for the reasons provided."

    Then handle the case of comparing {1,2,3,4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } IF you can. But you can't and you won't admit it. Pathetic.

    "And your "counter arguments" amount to repeating the same tripe that I am refuting. "

    NOT refuting I think you mean.

    "Your "reasoning" is as faulty as Cantor's and all you do is keep repeating it."

    When you can handle comparing the cardinality of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } then let me know. Otherwise cower in the corner. Your choice.

    "You haven't demonstrated any understanding of infinity. You do not understand that it is a journey' "

    You're so pleased to use an analogy but you can't answer questions.

    "And no, there hasn't been any point to this conversation for many days. Did you really think that just repeating the same ole claptrap was going to change my mind?"

    Oh gosh no. I think you are too stubborn and ignorant and stupid to change your mind.

     

  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "I understand the standard point of view. It is wrong for the reasons provided.

    And your "counter arguments" amount to repeating the same tripe that I am refuting.

    Your "reasoning" is as faulty as Cantor's and all you do is keep repeating it."

    You're right. I should bother repeating the same thing over and over again when you can't grasp it.

    "You haven't demonstrated any understanding of infinity. You do not understand that it is a journey."

    Nice that you've latched onto a metaphor that you didn't come up with and are using it to argue against viewpoints that you don't understand.

    "And no, there hasn't been any point to this conversation for many days. Did you really think that just repeating the same ole claptrap was going to change my mind?"

    I kepp hoping, pointlessly I suppose, that you will actually grow some balls and address some issues: Compare the cardinalities of {1,2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }.

    Or

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

    Stuff like that that you have cowardly avoided addressing. For days.

    Just because you have a 15 minute attention span doesn't mean we do. Or the people who build transistors and lasers and the ISS do.

    If you can't stand up for your own methods then why should anyone take you seriously?

     

  • At 5:12 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    Infinity being a journey is not a metaphor.

    BTW the people who build transitors don't need Cantor. No one does.

    Cantor invented a magical transformer and you blindly accept it because you are unable to think for yourself.

     

  • At 5:53 PM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Infinity being a journey is not a metaphor."

    And you would know because you can compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . .} and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } Oh, wait . . . you can't do that comparison. My bad.

    "BTW the people who build transitors don't need Cantor. No one does."

    They do need to be conversant with modern mathematics which you clearly are not.

    "Cantor invented a magical transformer and you blindly accept it because you are unable to think for yourself."

    Think what you like if it makes you feel better. I could care less.

    No, I take that back. I do care that you accuse people like me of being mindless dolts who can't think and who spent years and years trying to learn and figure out all the work that had come before of being useless Cantor worshippers. And this from someone who never even took a Set Theory course. Or an Abstract Algebra course. Who probably knows nothing about Topology or Graph Theory or Measure Theory or Complex Analysis. Your assumptions are rude and instulting actually. And your inability to address questions or even to admit you're wrong is pathetic. I take back what I said about you operating at the level of a 4th grader. At times you're not much past Kindergarten.

     

  • At 6:03 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Jerad,

    Is {0,2,4,6,8,...} a proper subset of {0,1,2,3,4,...} because its 2 corresponds with the other set's 1, or because there is an exact match in the other set which is corresponds to?

    We already have an alignment methodology that works. And it is naturally derived.

    Cantor needs to stay consistent. That is all I am doing.

    Strange that you are too stupid to understand that.

     

  • At 1:46 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    "Is {0,2,4,6,8,...} a proper subset of {0,1,2,3,4,...} because its 2 corresponds with the other set's 1, or because there is an exact match in the other set which is corresponds to?"

    Being a subset IS NOT THE POINT WHEN COMPARING CARDINALITIES!! You just don't get it do you?

    "Cantor needs to stay consistent. That is all I am doing.

    Strange that you are too stupid to understand that."

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

    And you're not even man enough to admit you can't handle it.

     

  • At 9:15 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Being a subset IS NOT THE POINT WHEN COMPARING CARDINALITIES!!

    I am talking about the ALIGNMENT you ignorant fuck.

    The subset alignment works- FOR INFINITY.

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

    Strange that you ar so fucking stupid that you don't understand that before we move on to something else we first have to settle what was on the table. already.

    Ya see Jerad, if you are too stupid to understand the alignment issue then you are too stupid to handle anything else.

     

  • At 2:04 AM, Blogger Unknown said…

    " 'Being a subset IS NOT THE POINT WHEN COMPARING CARDINALITIES!!'

    I am talking about the ALIGNMENT you ignorant fuck."

    You should work on your exposition, it's muddled and unclear.

    "The subset alignment works- FOR INFINITY."

    Whatever that means. Clearly you never took a Set Theory course even though you said you did.

    "Strange that you ar so fucking stupid that you don't understand that before we move on to something else we first have to settle what was on the table. already."

    We did handle it. You were wrong.

    "Ya see Jerad, if you are too stupid to understand the alignment issue then you are too stupid to handle anything else."

    Think what you like, it doesn't make you right.

     

  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…


    "The subset alignment works- FOR INFINITY."

    Whatever that means.

    Jerad admits he doesn't understand infinity.

    Jerad, dumbass, that means that for infinity the set of non-negative integers will always have the non-negative positive integers and still have the odd integers left uncovered- for infinity!

    We did handle it. You were wrong.

    All evidence to the contrary of course.

    And YOU can think what you like. It doesn't make you right, Jerad.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home