keiths, Total Moron

Give up keiths, you are nothing but a lowlife moron. Now keiths sez:
Umm the numerosity depends on their identity on the number line.
They don't if you place them in a onetoone correspondence by rearranging their position on that number line.
Hey lowlife, we are talking about allegedly infinite sets. Therefor bringing a finite set into the discussion is dishonest.
Then to prove he is an asshole, keiths sez:
LoL! I didn't need any outside help I did it on my own. Just because people offered to help doesn't mean I needed it.
And keiths continues his cowardly lies:
Your false accusation means nothing. But it does expose you are a liar.
Counting does NOT require such a thing you lowlife moron. And not only that Jerad now agrees with me!
By counting them, asshole. Again with the finite set as if your deception and dishoesty mean something.
And not to be outdone on the TARD, Richie the coward, chimes in:
If Richie and keiths had a brain, they would be dangerous. You assholes are pathetic and apparently you are proud of your cowardice.
I dare you two to try the following:
Try it start at 0 and count every nonnegative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the nonnegative 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.
Give up keiths, you are nothing but a lowlife moron. Now keiths sez:
we have asserted that the cardinality of a set does not depend on the identity of its elements — only on their numerosity.
Umm the numerosity depends on their identity on the number line.
To Joe, that means that we are claiming that “numbers have no meaning.”
They don't if you place them in a onetoone correspondence by rearranging their position on that number line.
Substitute one number for another and the cardinality of a set doesn’t change: {1,2,3} has the same cardinality as {5,6,7}.
Hey lowlife, we are talking about allegedly infinite sets. Therefor bringing a finite set into the discussion is dishonest.
Then to prove he is an asshole, keiths sez:
So Mr. “I fix things all kinds of things mechanical, electrical, electronic and personal” was unable to connect to a website and download some PDFs without outside help?
LoL! I didn't need any outside help I did it on my own. Just because people offered to help doesn't mean I needed it.
And keiths continues his cowardly lies:
It has never dawned on Joe that the process of counting — which he wholeheartedly endorses, even for infinite sets — is exactly the sort of thing he says should never be done.
Your false accusation means nothing. But it does expose you are a liar.
Why? Because it involves setting up a onetoone correspondence between nonidentical elements.
Counting does NOT require such a thing you lowlife moron. And not only that Jerad now agrees with me!
How do you count the elements in {5, 23, 41, 99, 666}?
By counting them, asshole. Again with the finite set as if your deception and dishoesty mean something.
And not to be outdone on the TARD, Richie the coward, chimes in:
If Joe had two beans and one had “15″ pained on it, he’d have 16 beans by Joemath.
If Richie and keiths had a brain, they would be dangerous. You assholes are pathetic and apparently you are proud of your cowardice.
I dare you two to try the following:
Try it start at 0 and count every nonnegative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the nonnegative 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.
80 Comments:
At 11:17 AM, socle said…
Joe,
Random question here, but I'm sure JoeMath is up to the task. Consider the Cartesian plane. Is it your contention that there is some minimum (Euclidean) distance between any two points?
IOW, if P and Q are points in the plane, then d(P, Q) >= K, for some fixed real number K? If all sets are finite, then that should be the case.
At 11:34 AM, Joe G said…
Is it your contention that there is some minimum (Euclidean) distance between any two points?
How can you tell if there are two points if they are not separated in some way?
At 11:36 AM, Joe G said…
Consider the Cartesian plane.
I have never flown one nor in one. How many engines does it have?
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
At 1:58 PM, socle said…
How can you tell if there are two points if they are not separated in some way?
Certainly any two distinct points must be separated by some distance.
The question is, is there a smallest possible distance between any two points?
At 2:11 PM, Joe G said…
Certainly any two distinct points must be separated by some distance.
OK wait. A point should have a definite size. That would mean it would have a center.
A line would be made up of a uniform linear packing of points. The distance between the centers of two adjacent points = 1 point.
The Cartesian coordinate defines the center of the point.
I would be OK if the diameter of a point = the diamter of an electron. JoeMath would make it so.
LoL!
At 2:14 PM, Joe G said…
Does a Cartesian plane come with fine Corinthian leather?
At 4:03 PM, socle said…
Interesting. How are the points arranged in 2dimensional space?
At 4:16 PM, Joe G said…
A line would be made up of a uniform linear packing of points. The distance between the centers of two adjacent points = 1 point.
At 5:10 PM, socle said…
A line would be made up of a uniform linear packing of points. The distance between the centers of two adjacent points = 1 point.
Understood. But how are the points arranged in the 2dimensional plane (as opposed to a 1dimensional line)?
At 5:37 PM, Joe G said…
The Cartesian coordinate defines the center of the point.
IOW it all depends on what points you are talking about arrange them however you want and then connect them to see what you got.
At 5:40 PM, Joe G said…
How thick does a line have to be in order to call it 2 dimensional?
At 5:48 PM, socle said…
How thick does a line have to be in order to call it 2 dimensional?
Ok, I think I see where you are coming from. In "normal" plane geometry, for example Euclidean geometry, lines don't have any width, and points don't have any area.
At 5:51 PM, Joe G said…
In "normal" plane geometry, for example Euclidean geometry, lines don't have any width, and points don't have any area.
Invisible ink I should have tried that, hand in a blank paper and say the lines are there, they just don't have any width. And all the points are there, they just don't have any area.
At 6:10 PM, socle said…
Invisible ink I should have tried that, hand in a blank paper and say the lines are there, they just don't have any width. And all the points are there, they just don't have any area.
While you can't draw a true geometric line or point, they are useful, as you demonstrated when you used the Pythagorean Theorem. There's also the 345 rule for constructing right angles. All that follows from working with "invisible" lines.
At 7:24 AM, Joe G said…
How can you tell if it's a right angle if you cannot see it?
At 10:18 AM, socle said…
Joe, can you prove the Pythagorean Theorem in JoeMath? You used it in the discussion of the square root of 2, so it must hold in your system, somehow.
At 10:28 AM, Joe G said…
How can I if I can't see the lines? ;)
At 10:31 AM, socle said…
This is in JoeMath, where lines are visible.
At 10:34 AM, Joe G said…
Well, then my proof is the same as the original. No need to reinvent the wheel.
The Pythagorean Theorem, unlike Cantor's view of infinite sets, actually works, ie has some utility.
Why would you think JoeMath would treat the Pythagorean Theorem any differently?
Or are you still just fishing?
At 11:08 AM, socle said…
The problem is you can't just use the "original" proof. All the proofs I've ever seen assume (Euclidean) plane geometry. The theorems of Euclidean plane geometry do not all hold in JoeMath. For example, in Euclidean geometry, every line segment has a unique midpoint. Not so in JoeMath.
Also, any two distinct nonparallel lines intersect in exactly one point in Euclidean geometry. That is not the case in JoeMath.
At 11:40 AM, Joe G said…
For example, in Euclidean geometry, every line segment has a unique midpoint. Not so in JoeMath.
What? That is just ignorant spewage.
Why wouldn't there be a single midpoint for every line segnebt in JoeMath? Please be specific.
Also, any two distinct nonparallel lines intersect in exactly one point in Euclidean geometry. That is not the case in JoeMath.
You're just making shit up. And that is all it is> shit.
At 12:14 PM, socle said…
Why wouldn't there be a single midpoint for every line segnebt in JoeMath? Please be specific.
Choose a line L and two adjacent points A and B on L (they're like beads on a string, right?). Let's say their coordinates are A = (x1, y1) and B = (x2, y2). Then the midpoint should be ( (x1 + x2)/2, (y1 + y2)/2 ), but those are not the coordinates of a point in JoeMath. The centers of any two points are at least one electron's diameter apart in your system.
There is therefore no midpoint of the segment with endpoints A and B.
At 12:41 PM, Joe G said…
LoL! I can't seem to keep my hands lined up and the timing correct without looking at the keyboard!
What the fuck!!!!!!!
Choose a line L and two adjacent points A and B on L (they're like beads on a string, right?). Let's say their coordinates are A = (x1, y1) and B = (x2, y2). Then the midpoint should be ( (x1 + x2)/2, (y1 + y2)/2 ), but those are not the coordinates of a point in JoeMath.
JoeMath says the midpoint between two adjacent points would be their touching boundary, ie exactly 1D into the line segment(from either end) consisting of two adjacent points. (where D = diameter of a point)
At 4:49 PM, Unknown said…
"JoeMath says the midpoint between two adjacent points would be their touching boundary, ie exactly 1D into the line segment(from either end) consisting of two adjacent points. (where D = diameter of a point)"
And since points don't have a diameter . . .
At 5:04 PM, Joe G said…
Try it start at 0 and count every nonnegative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the nonnegative 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.
And what I am proposing has nothing to do with the rate. One set will always have more elements tahn the otehr always, forever, for infinity, even.
And if points don't have a dimension, ie no diameter, then how do you know they exist?
At 5:05 PM, Joe G said…
A point without any dimension is pointless.
At 5:35 PM, Unknown said…
"And if points don't have a dimension, ie no diameter, then how do you know they exist?"
What is the dimension or diameter of (2, 3)?
At 5:47 PM, Joe G said…
How do you know (2,3) exists? can you see it?
At 5:59 PM, Unknown said…
"How do you know (2,3) exists? can you see it?"
Non answer.
At 6:03 PM, socle said…
JoeMath says the midpoint between two adjacent points would be their touching boundary, ie exactly 1D into the line segment(from either end) consisting of two adjacent points. (where D = diameter of a point)
Ok, then is this "midpoint" actually a point which lies on the line?
At 10:46 PM, Joe G said…
Ok, then is this "midpoint" actually a point which lies on the line?
You could make one by using the midpoints of both points (A,B) as the diameter. Then the boundary of AB will be that point's midpoint.
At 10:47 PM, Joe G said…
"And if points don't have a dimension, ie no diameter, then how do you know they exist?"
What is the dimension or diameter of (2, 3)?
Non answer.
A point without any dimension is pointless.
At 11:55 PM, socle said…
You could make one by using the midpoints of both points (A,B) as the diameter. Then the boundary of AB will be that point's midpoint.
That would be the "logical" thing to do, but you can't do it in JoeMath.
In your system, each line is a series of points lined up like beads on a string. This new midpoint wasn't one of those, so it can't be on the line.
On the other hand, in Euclidean geometry, the midpoint of any segment does lie on the line determined by the endpoints of the segment.
That means there are theorems in Euclidean geometry which are false in JoeMath. Therefore you can't just say "use the original proof of the Pythagorean Theorem" in your system, without checking whether the proof is valid.
BTW, there are hundred(s) of proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem, maybe you could look through them and try to find one that works in JoeMath? I don't think any of them will, but the proofs are interesting to read.
At 9:11 AM, Joe G said…
socle,
YOI don't get to tell ME what JoeMath can and cannot do.
And you do NOT get to say that a midpoint has to be an actual point.
In Euclidean geometry points do NOT exist. As I said any point without dimension is pointless.
IOW there isn't any "midpoint" because points do not exist!
But anyway, go fuck yourself for trying to tell me what JoeMath can and cannot do.
At 9:29 AM, Unknown said…
"And you do NOT get to say that a midpoint has to be an actual point."
Way down the rabbit hole now.
"In Euclidean geometry points do NOT exist. As I said any point without dimension is pointless."
It must be pretty dark and scary down there.
"IOW there isn't any "midpoint" because points do not exist!
But anyway, go fuck yourself for trying to tell me what JoeMath can and cannot do."
Even Joe doesn't know what JoeMath can and cannot do. For instance he says that (0, 1) has a smallest value but he can't find it.
He says the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } is greater than the cardinality of {1, ½, ¼, ⅛ . . . } but he can't say what either of them are or how they compare with the cardinality of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . . }. Somehow JoeMath thinks cardinality has to do with the kind of elements that are in the sets.
And JoeMath can't tell us what the legth of the diagonal of a unit square is.
JoeMath can't deliver the goods.
At 9:33 AM, Joe G said…
Yes, Jerad, you are way up the rabbit's asshole.
For instance he says that (0, 1) has a smallest value but he can't find it.
Not for free. Why should I work for nithing?
And JoeMath can't tell us what the legth of the diagonal of a unit square is.
A measuring tape will do that. No mathematics can give us an exact number for the square root of 2.
He says the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } is greater than the cardinality of {1, ½, ¼, ⅛ . . . } but he can't say what either of them are
So Jerad is so ignorant that he cannot follow along and he thinks his ignorance refutes what i have posted.
What does Cantor say the cardinality is? He cannot say infinity because cardinality refers to a NUMBER.
At 9:39 AM, socle said…
YOI don't get to tell ME what JoeMath can and cannot do.
Sure I can. Once you describe how your system works, anyone can start conducting research on JoeMath.
And you do NOT get to say that a midpoint has to be an actual point.
So if a midpoint is not a point, what is it? What are its dimensions? It almost looks as if you are thinking of midpoints as being locations without size, which is how Euclidean points are regarded.
In Euclidean geometry points do NOT exist. As I said any point without dimension is pointless.
False. If you are working with the usual xy plane model for Eucldidean geometry, points are just ordered pairs of real numbers. Like (2, 3). If I asked you to find the distance between (2, 3) and (1, 7), no doubt you would say 5. The fact that ordered pairs of real numbers are not little disks did not prevent us from doing the calculation.
At 9:45 AM, Unknown said…
"Not for free. Why should I work for nithing?"
Chokes again. On one of JoeMath's assertions. It's not looking good for our hero!!
" 'And JoeMath can't tell us what the legth of the diagonal of a unit square is. '
A measuring tape will do that. No mathematics can give us an exact number for the square root of 2."
And wil your measuring tape give you a number that when squared is equal to 2? Well?
"So Jerad is so ignorant that he cannot follow along and he thinks his ignorance refutes what i have posted."
I'm just waiting for you to stop choking on your own assertions and statements and give some answers.
"What does Cantor say the cardinality is? He cannot say infinity because cardinality refers to a NUMBER."
Oh dear, JoeMath can't handle cardinal numbers. If it starts coughing up blood we may have to put it out of its misery.
At 9:50 AM, socle said…
BTW, Joe, all this leads to another question: Choose two lines L1 and L2 in JoeMath. Which line, if any, has more points? Answer: All lines are identical in JoeMath, so the cardinalities should be equal.
At 9:51 AM, Joe G said…
Sure I can. Once you describe how your system works, anyone can start conducting research on JoeMath.
Yes but you are an asshole on an agenda.
So if a midpoint is not a point, what is it?
It's a place.
It almost looks as if you are thinking of midpoints as being locations without size, which is how Euclidean points are regarded.
But points make up lines, and if points don't have any dimensions then there cannot be any lines!
In Euclidean geometry points do NOT exist. As I said any point without dimension is pointless.
False.
Nope, true.
If you are working with the usual xy plane model for Eucldidean geometry, points are just ordered pairs of real numbers.
Umm real numbers are also points and you can't see them.
At 10:07 AM, socle said…
It's a place.
That's what points are considered to be in geometry.
You have a chance to reconcile JoeMath with regular math now. Just form the set of all places on a line. That corresponds to the set of Euclidean "points" on the line.
But points make up lines, and if points don't have any dimensions then there cannot be any lines!
Or you could say "places" make up lines. Problem solved.
At 10:35 AM, Rich Hughes said…
JoeMath can make Joe look foolish. That's it.
At 4:13 PM, Joe G said…
Choose two lines L1 and L2 in JoeMath. Which line, if any, has more points?
The longer line has more points, duh.
Answer: All lines are identical in JoeMath, so the cardinalities should be equal.
As I said you are an asshole on an agenda.
At 4:15 PM, Joe G said…
That's what points are considered to be in geometry.
So what? It doesn't have to be.
Or you could say "places" make up lines.
A house is a place...
At 4:28 PM, Joe G said…
Richie Hughes makes Richie Hughes look foolish.
At 4:30 PM, Joe G said…
Oh dear, JoeMath can't handle cardinal numbers.
Oh dear, Jerad can't even count.
At 4:43 PM, socle said…
That's what points are considered to be in geometry.
So what? It doesn't have to be.
Or you could say "places" make up lines.
A house is a place...
You can certainly choose a different word to use for "place" if you want to avoid confusion.
Anyway, this is how math works. It turns out that lines in JoeMath present certain problems. Midpoints, intersections of lines, and so forth. And what happens if next year they announce that the official diameter of the electron has been changed? Then your life's work is shot to hell.
It's much easier to dispense with these disklike points and just say a line is a set of places. Using sequences, you could then extend the original set of places so that it is topologically equivalent to the real number line. This carries over to the xy plane as well. And once you have the xy plane, then you can prove the Pythagorean Theorem.
At 4:59 PM, Unknown said…
"Oh dear, Jerad can't even count."
I can count. I can count very well. And I can answer questions you have dodged and avoided:
What is the smallest number in (0, 1) ?
What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} ?
You won't answer without being paid? I hope you enjoy poverty.
JoeMath . . . not up to the task. Can't deliver.
At 7:29 PM, Joe G said…
socle,
You are nothing but a fullofshit asshole. The only problems with JoeMath are all in your littlebitty mind.
And nothing happens to my technique if the diameter of an electron is found to be different. Once we set how many points there are in each integer interval that is all we need.
As I have been saying, it's as if you chumps think that your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
At 7:39 PM, socle said…
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
At 2:03 AM, Unknown said…
" 'Oh dear, JoeMath can't handle cardinal numbers. '
Oh dear, Jerad can't even count."
JoeMaths STILL can't handle cardinal numbers!!
JoeMaths isn't even trying to handle cardinal numbers.
JoeMaths can't support his own assertion that (0, 1) has a smallest value.
AND, apparently, aside from not believing in irrational numbers (which have been know about for 2500 years) JoeMaths doesn't believe in midpoints of line segments.
At 1:21 PM, 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 2:24 PM, socle said…
Joe,
Not to derail the discussion, but suppose A = [0, ∞) and B = {2x : x ∈ A}, both subsets of R. Every element of B is twice some element of A.
How do the cardinalities of A and B compare?
At 2:54 PM, 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."
Oh dear, is there an echo in here? Didn't I just read this on another thread? I'm pretty sure I did. Which means that not only are your methods not able to deliver but your ability to respond with intelligent and insightful reponses has also reached the end of the tracks. But, the inifinity train continues to chug along, to infinity and beyond!! Maybe, if you run really fast and count those positive integers all along the way, you can catch up. I'm not sure we can slow down the progression of mathematical thinking much more . . . so many people doing so much work . . . I guess if you can't keep up . . .
At 3:26 PM, Joe G said…
socle,
As soon as someone collects such sets let me know.
At 3:27 PM, 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.
That measn YOU have reached the end of the tracks, Jerad.
At 4:50 PM, Unknown said…
"That measn YOU have reached the end of the tracks, Jerad."
Oh gosh, I don't think so. Not when I can answer questions you can't. Even ones you proposed.
What is the smallest number in (0, 1) ? You said it existed. You were really sure about it. And what is it? The world waits. And waits. And waits.
And where are your defenders? People upholding your view of mathematics? Why aren't they posting here, supporting JoeMaths? Funny that. Dr Dembski? Dr Behe? GEM? Is there anyone? At all?
At 8:08 PM, 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 12:03 AM, 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'm waiting to see you compare the cardinalities of the positive integers and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} since you're such a great counter. Go on. Or are you going to choke on this problem AGAIN?
At 7:36 AM, Joe G said…
Jerad,
Seeing that you cannot count cardinalities mean nothing to you.
Cantor the coward had to make up new terms. However when JoeMath does that you say to shoot it.
IOW you are nothing but a pussy, Jerad.
At 8:44 AM, Unknown said…
"Seeing that you cannot count cardinalities mean nothing to you.
Cantor the coward had to make up new terms. However when JoeMath does that you say to shoot it.
IOW you are nothing but a pussy, Jerad."
Cantor came up with a system that works. Your system doesn't work.
At 8:48 AM, Joe G said…
In what way does Cantor's system work? Please be specific.
At 9:36 AM, Unknown said…
"In what way does Cantor's system work? Please be specific."
In can handle comparing the cardinalities of the postive integers and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} for example. Which JoeMaths cannot.
At 9:38 AM, Joe G said…
LoL! All Cantor does is throw up his hands and decalres them equal!
Is that what you mean by "works"?
At 1:33 AM, Unknown said…
"LoL! All Cantor does is throw up his hands and decalres them equal!
Is that what you mean by "works"?"
Clearly you don't get it. And clearly your method doesn't work. So, clearly, you have no claim or insight to criticise anyone else's methods.
What's the smallest number in (0, 1) ?
Is {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } and ifinite set? What is its cardinality?
I know you can't answer those questions but I just thought I'd let you know that I haven't forgotten.
At 8:51 AM, Unknown said…
"LoL! All Cantor does is throw up his hands and decalres them equal!
Is that what you mean by "works"?"
Better than what JoeMaths can do. JoeMaths doesn't even attempt to answer the question. JoeMaths chokes and won't admit it.
At 9:51 AM, Joe G said…
Jerad,
You are teh choker and a joker:
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 5:01 PM, Unknown said…
"You are teh choker and a joker:"
I try and amuse.
"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."
Not with inifinite sets. Until you grasp this the discussion is futile.
"And the predicted unsupported and cowardly response of "Joe doesn't understand infinity", is duly noted."
Good. Because it's true. You don't undestand how infinite sets differ from finite sets.
"Let the flailing begin…"
I'm not into that kind of thing. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
At 9:41 PM, Joe G said…
Not with inifinite sets.
So you keep asserting yet offer nothing to support your shit.
Until you grasp this the discussion is futile.
LoL! Discussing anything with you is futile.
You think infinity is some sort of magical equalizer/ transformer.
You people are defective.
At 1:21 AM, Unknown said…
"So you keep asserting yet offer nothing to support your shit."
I did, you didn't get it. Unlike my 11year old son. He could even see that (1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . . } have the same cardinality. You can't even acknowledge the question.
"LoL! Discussing anything with you is futile."
I'm sorry I don't use invective and refer to genetalia. I know that's what you like but it's just not my style.
"You think infinity is some sort of magical equalizer/ transformer."
Only seems that way to you 'cause you don't get it.
"You people are defective."
Yawn.
At 9:18 AM, Joe G said…
LoL! So you son is as retarded as you. So what? I would expect that because that is how genetics works.
You think infinity is some sort of magical equalizer/ transformer.
No doubt about that. IOW it seems that way because it is that way, dumbass.
At 9:28 AM, Unknown said…
"LoL! So you son is as retarded as you. So what? I would expect that because that is how genetics works."
You can't even address those two sets can you?
And you didn't even copyandpaste it into your reply 'cause you're running away from dealing with it.
At 9:33 AM, Joe G said…
Jeard,
You can't address two sets. YOU think that infinity is some sort of magical equalizer.
"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 you sure as hell cannot demonstrate that is wrong.
At 1:18 PM, Unknown said…
"You can't address two sets. YOU think that infinity is some sort of magical equalizer."
YOU haven't answered the question. Again. Because your method cannot compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } But you're not mature enough to admit it.
" "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 you sure as hell cannot demonstrate that is wrong."
Sure I can. I have done. I've shown there is a onetoone correspondence between the positive integers and the positive even integers and you don't get the proof so you think you can say I haven't proved that.
You are not the final arbitrator. But you don't get that either. You think you get some kind of pass because . . . I don't know why you think that way. But you don't get a pass. And you're not right. And 100 years of mathematical work which you don't understand say so. And hundreds of mathematicians say so. All all of those people also know that there is no smallest element of (0, 1). Did you think I was going to forget? Sorry. And all of those people think that root 2 has an exact value that cannot be expressed with a finite decimal expansion. But you don't get it so you think you're right.
At 1:26 PM, Joe G said…
Jerad,
Your "proof" is exposed in the transformer thread.
And this:
And all of those people think that root 2 has an exact value that cannot be expressed with a finite decimal expansion.
Is pure bullshit. What is the exact value Jerad?
At 2:04 PM, Unknown said…
" 'And all of those people think that root 2 has an exact value that cannot be expressed with a finite decimal expansion. '
Is pure bullshit. What is the exact value Jerad?"
It's the number which, when squared, equals two. :)
Sorry if JoeMaths can't handle that. At least you can always take care of the Iron Age contracts.
At 2:06 PM, Joe G said…
Typical cowardly nonresponse.
Thank you.
At 5:57 PM, Unknown said…
"Typical cowardly nonresponse.
Thank you."
Prove me wrong, give me an exact value for a number which squared equals 2. There must be such a number. It's the solution for the equation x^2 = 2. Or is it, in JoeMaths, that that equation has no solution? Please answer.
And, while you're at it, why don't you stop running away and compare the cardinalities of {1,2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} IF you can.
At 6:04 PM, Joe G said…
Prove me wrong, give me an exact value for a number which squared equals 2.
I have been asking you for that. And you said it didn't exist.
At 1:49 AM, Unknown said…
"I have been asking you for that. And you said it didn't exist."
You can't even remember what I said!! I said it had an exact value but it can't be written as a finite decimal!!!
No wonder you think you've won an argument, you can't even remember what your opponent said!!
And you can't compare the cardinalities of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }
Post a Comment
<< Home