Intelligent Reasoning: Intelligent Design is Alive, Well and Still Going Strong

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Intelligent Design is Alive, Well and Still Going Strong

-
Ignorant evoTARDs are sure that ID is either dead or dying. However the only thing that will kill ID is for someone to actually step up and demonstrate that blind watchmaker-type processes can produce living organisms and the diversity of life observed- yet no one has come close to doing so. Quite the opposite has been occurring- meaning ID is better supported now than at any time in our history.

All of the following still stands:

1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

And that alone means that the demise of Intelligent Design exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant. Well that plus the fact that the opposition doesn't have any entailments!

Sure evoTARDs can baldly declare that ID is dead but that is all they do- baldly declare shit. That is the cowardly way...

410 Comments:

At 10:43 AM, Unknown said…

1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

Well, we do have lots of examples of inanimate objects made by intelligent agents. Not sure you can generalise to living things.

2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

Irreducible complexity has not been accepted by biologists because it's not been proved that any observable system or sub-system IS irreducibly complex.

3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

You cannot prove that natural mechanisms are insufficient. Any your chosen argument, that mutations are directed, is unfalsifiable. Someday when someone does provide a plausible, step-by-step mutational pathway for creating a new protein you'll just say that the mutations were directed. People are working on that by the way; I heard an interview with a biologist the other day who's focus is that very thing.

4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

I tell you something that ID lacks aside from a dearth of peer-reviewed publications and a research agenda: there is no forum where ID researchers critique and examine each others' ideas and hypotheses. Think about it: when did you see or hear anyone in the ID community tell another ID supporter, Sorry dude but you're just wrong. It happens all the time in physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. But never in ID. Why is that do you suppose?
At 12:12 PM, Joe G said…

Well, we do have lots of examples of inanimate objects made by intelligent agents. Not sure you can generalise to living things.

No one is generalizing.

Irreducible complexity has not been accepted by biologists because it's not been proved that any observable system or sub-system IS irreducibly complex.

Wrong. Biologists understand IC and have been trying and failing to demonstrate a mechanism like natural selection can produce it.

You cannot prove that natural mechanisms are insufficient.

Don't have to because neither you nor anyone else can show they are sufficient.

Any your chosen argument, that mutations are directed, is unfalsifiable.

And yet I have said how to falsify it.

Someday when someone does provide a plausible, step-by-step mutational pathway for creating a new protein

What does that mean? Are they doing so on paper or in a real experiment?

you'll just say that the mutations were directed.

Fuck you

I tell you something that ID lacks aside from a dearth of peer-reviewed publications

Unguided evolution isn't supported in peer-review you hypocrite.

and a research agenda:

What's unguided evolution's research agenda mr hypocrite?

OK so there isn't any blind watchmaker hypotheses. No blind watchmaker research and nothing in peer-review supporting it.

Attacking ID with your ignorance isn't helping either.
At 4:24 PM, Unknown said…

No one is generalizing.

But you are. You are suggesting that examples of non-living design imply that living/alive things that look designed must be designed. And I don't think that's a fair assumption.

Wrong. Biologists understand IC and have been trying and failing to demonstrate a mechanism like natural selection can produce it.

Joe, you know that a vast majority of biologists disagree with that. You can assert it if you wish but you cannot state it as true.

Don't have to because neither you nor anyone else can show they are sufficient.

You've got this the wrong way around you know. The consensus is that natural processes WERE adequate and ID is claiming that they weren't so ID has to prove its claim.

And yet I have said how to falsify it.

Perhaps. I will wait and see how you react when someone proposes a plausible mutation path to developing a new protein.

What does that mean? Are they doing so on paper or in a real experiment?

Perhaps you'd like to take a stand and say when you'd be willing to change your mind? As I recall you just said someone had to propose a plausible path.

Fuck you

If you want people to take you seriously you should really try harder to participate in the dialogue you claim to want.

Unguided evolution isn't supported in peer-review you hypocrite.

Too bad most of the rest of the scientific world disagrees with you.

What's unguided evolution's research agenda mr hypocrite?

I'm sorry, are you not keeping up with the current research? That explains a lot actually.

OK so there isn't any blind watchmaker hypotheses. No blind watchmaker research and nothing in peer-review supporting it.

You can say this as often and as loudly as you like but it doesn't make it true. Perhaps you'd like to engage in a real debate?

Attacking ID with your ignorance isn't helping either.

Perhaps you'd like to do a better job defending ID then: i.e. telling us all what it's saying, what was designed, when and why?

And you can't keep falling back on the 'we first have to determine design occurred' argument because you've already said it has occurred. And you can't keep saying 'we have to study the design in order to make some kind of decision about the hows and whys and whens' because you've had that data for decades now.

Seriously Joe, it's time to take a stand and say what you mean. 'Fuck you' just ain't gonna cut it any more. Either you have a plausible model or you don't. Which is it? And you know what I mean.
At 8:28 PM, Joe G said…

You are suggesting that examples of non-living design imply that living/alive things that look designed must be designed.

You don't have an alternative explanation

Joe, you know that a vast majority of biologists disagree with that.

No, I don't know any such thing. And I have seen plenty of biologists try to refute Behe's IC.

The consensus is that natural processes WERE adequate

Scienbce is NOT done by consensus- what the fuck is wrong with you?

There isn't any EVIDENCE that demonstrates blind and undirected processes can do it.

Too bad most of the rest of the scientific world disagrees with you.

Who cares? They cannot refute me and that is all that matters.

Go ahead and try, I dare you.

You can say this as often and as loudly as you like but it doesn't make it true.

It is true and you cannot show otherwise.

Perhaps you'd like to engage in a real debate?

I would love to but all you can do is bluff.

Perhaps you'd like to do a better job defending ID then

LoL! I can defend ID better than you can defend evolutionism.

And you can't keep falling back on the 'we first have to determine design occurred' argument because you've already said it has occurred.

It is occurring and your position still has NOTHING. If it had something you would just present it and ID would be falsified.

What do YOU have, Jerad? Why is it that the leading paradigm cannot lead by example?

Yours doesn't have a model. Yours doesn't make any predictions and yours is totally useless. You are nothing but a bluffing asshole.

Lead by example or fuck off you coward.
At 8:29 PM, Joe G said…

I'm sorry, are you not keeping up with the current research?

Yes, you are sorry and there isn't any research that supports the blind watchmaker thesis. If there were you would just link to it.
At 12:43 AM, Unknown said…

You don't have an alternative explanation

Read: not one that Joe accepts as being worthy of discussion. Actually, you can't allow even a small concession to evolutionary theory.

No, I don't know any such thing. And I have seen plenty of biologists try to refute Behe's IC.

You do know that, denying it just makes you look blind and ignorant. And no, only a few biologists have bothered to even discuss Dr Behe's ideas because it's obvious he hasn't bothered to check to see if what he's thinking makes sense. He side-steps the process where he discusses his ideas with people who know the field.

Scienbce is NOT done by consensus- what the fuck is wrong with you?

I didn't say it was. But, to some extent, what is accepted as being established is a matter of consensus.

There isn't any EVIDENCE that demonstrates blind and undirected processes can do it.

So you say. How's being a merchant of doubt working out then? Got you any respect from real scientists? Got your opinion promulgated to any great extent? You don't even keep up with the work done by ID's own people!!

Who cares? They cannot refute me and that is all that matters.

So now you do accept that most of the rest of the planet thinks you're wrong. That's progress, in a sense.

Go ahead and try, I dare you.

It's been done. You just prefer to stand along the side of the track as the train whizzes by screaming that you're not convinced. Your choice.

It is true and you cannot show otherwise.

Read: you cannot convince Joe because Joe has staked his reputation on being a denier.

I would love to but all you can do is bluff.

It's hard to discuss things with you when you just deny and decry anything you disagree with.

LoL! I can defend ID better than you can defend evolutionism.

Too bad you can't give an ID based explanation for some basic issues.

It is occurring and your position still has NOTHING. If it had something you would just present it and ID would be falsified.

You really should make more of an attempt to keep up with current research instead of just reading a few books written by people who you agree with.

What do YOU have, Jerad? Why is it that the leading paradigm cannot lead by example?

Uh . . . it is doing that. Doing research. Publishing research. Discussing ideas. Coming up with new tests and investigations.

Yours doesn't have a model. Yours doesn't make any predictions and yours is totally useless. You are nothing but a bluffing asshole.

It predicted Tiktaalic. It predicts what kind of fossils will be discovered in certain layers. It predicts that bacteria will become immune to antibiotics.

Lead by example or fuck off you coward.

Does your daughter know you're such a potty mouth?

Yes, you are sorry and there isn't any research that supports the blind watchmaker thesis. If there were you would just link to it.

It's much funnier listening to you scream and shout that you can't see the forest for the trees. It's not my place to teach you when you prefer to be ignorant.
At 6:45 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad, Fuck you. If your position had something someone would have presented it. Also there isn't any "evolutionary theory".

What am I denying, Jerad? Why can't you make a case as opposed to false accusations?

Tiktaalik was NOT a blind watchmaker prediction you ignorant ass. Not only that it was WRONG!

But nice to see all you can do is bluff because all you are is a lying coward. If you had something you would present it.

You are a liar and a loser. BTW most of the planet thinks that unguided evolution is total bullshit...
At 10:00 AM, Unknown said…

Jerad, Fuck you. If your position had something someone would have presented it. Also there isn't any "evolutionary theory".

If you were a mature adult you could make your points without swearing. AND you wouldn't keep saying things you know aren't true.

Do you sear at your daughter? Just wondering.

What am I denying, Jerad? Why can't you make a case as opposed to false accusations?

You deny things that have been pointed out to you many times. You deny that some theories and ideas and examples exist when you know they do.

You are a merchant of doubt, a denialist. You think you can win just by continually screaming THAT'S NOT TRUE!!

Tiktaalik was NOT a blind watchmaker prediction you ignorant ass. Not only that it was WRONG!

It was wrong? How can a fossil be wrong? Something like that was predicted to exist at that layer and that's where it was found.

But nice to see all you can do is bluff because all you are is a lying coward. If you had something you would present it.

And Joe says: if you don't show it to me it doesn't exist. Nice, limited world you live in.

By the way, have you figured out why the trilobites existed yet?

You are a liar and a loser. BTW most of the planet thinks that unguided evolution is total bullshit...

A vast majority of biologist (who have actually studied ALL the evidence and not just cherry-picked some) think it has. I'll stick with the people who have done the work.
At 11:46 AM, Unknown said…

From (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/intelligent-design-is-dea_b_1175049.html) Intelligent Design is Dead: a Christian Perspective:

"For a person of faith, ID is not just an unnecessary choice; it is a harmful one. It reduces God to a kind of holy tinkerer. It locates the divine in places of ignorance and obscurity. And this gives it a defensive and fearful spirit that is out of place in Christian faith and theology."
At 11:54 AM, Unknown said…

And this from (http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2011/11/29/twenty-years-after-darwin-on-t/) Twenty Years after Darwin on Trial, ID is dead.

"But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly absurd. There have been numerous books and countless magazine and internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments ID has to offer. Quite a few scientists have taken time out from their real jobs to take ID seriously, ponder its arguments, and formulate counter-arguments that they then patiently explain to anyone who is interested. Klinghoffer obviously does not agree that the counter-arguments have been successful, but that’s a far different charge from saying that ID has been ignored."

and

"What would Kilnghoffer have Myers do? Write another post explaining why irreducible complexity is nonsense? Another post explaining why complex specified information is crap, or why Dembski’s use of the No Free Lunch Theorems is silly, or how Jonathan Wells was wrong about everything in Icons of Evolution? There’s only so many times you can refute the Darwin/Hitler connection, or the urban legends about creationists being fired from their jobs just because of their beliefs, or the endless wolf-crying claims that the latest bits of esoterica from the back pages of Nature somehow refute evolution, before you move on to other things."
At 12:03 PM, Unknown said…

Another good article (http://vq.vassar.edu/issues/2007/03/features/intelligent-design-is-dead.html)

"If intelligent design is truly a scientific theory, we should be able to identify its pattern and process components, use it to make testable predictions, and describe observations that would falsify it. We face immediate difficulties because the proponents of ID place severe restrictions on the features of life that they accept as evidence for a designing intelligence. Consider Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity,” the feature of life that he claims provides evidence for a designing intelligence. Behe defines an irreducibly complex structure as one that has several parts and will not function if any of its parts is inactivated or removed. Originally, he used a standard spring-loaded bar mousetrap as a man-made example. Unfortunately for Behe, tinkerers immediately fashioned working traps that lacked one or more of the standard parts. Behe’s biological icon of irreducible complexity was the bacterial flagellum, the whiplike structure that propels some bacterial cells. Here, too, it was easy to show that Behe’s definition did not hold. By turning off a few of the many genes that code for different proteins that comprise the flagellum, geneticists were able to produce mutant strains of bacteria, each of which had flagella with a different part deactivated. In each strain, the flagella still propelled the bacteria. I could cite several other examples of biological structures and processes that ID advocates have claimed are irreducibly complex but on careful examination clearly are not. Suffice it to say that the broad set of observations that would constitute the pattern component of ID is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find."

and

"What about the process component of ID? There isn’t one. I have yet to read a description of the process through which the designing intelligence works. Testable predictions? Again, nothing. How can one make predictions without a process or mechanism to base the predictions on? Is ID falsifiable? To my mind the answer is no. That may seem a little strange, since I obviously don’t think that ID is a scientific theory. But that’s precisely my point. Scientifically, ID is dead. Intelligent design is also legally dead. Kitzmiller v. Dover, the case that put ID on the national media stage, then drew the curtain and turned out the lights, was really quite spectacular. In 2004 the Dover Pennsylvania school board required that a statement on evolution and intelligent design be read to students in ninth-grade biology classes. In part the statement said: “Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.” "
At 12:56 PM, Joe G said…

"If intelligent design is truly a scientific theory, we should be able to identify its pattern and process components, use it to make testable predictions, and describe observations that would falsify it.

We have.

Unfortunately for Behe, tinkerers immediately fashioned working traps that lacked one or more of the standard parts.

LoL! Yes intelligent designers can do such things. What moron wrote this ignorant trope?

Here, too, it was easy to show that Behe’s definition did not hold. By turning off a few of the many genes that code for different proteins that comprise the flagellum, geneticists were able to produce mutant strains of bacteria, each of which had flagella with a different part deactivated.

More moronic trope. As if that means that the entire flagellum evolved via blind watchmaker processes.

YOU have to be a moron to cite such ignorance.
At 12:58 PM, Joe G said…

What about the process component of ID?

ID is about the DESIGN. We don't know how Stonehenge was designed and built so obviously the process is not required in order to A) determine intelligent design is present and B) study it.

How ignorant is the anti-ID mob?
At 1:00 PM, Joe G said…

But to anyone outside the ID bubble the claim that evolutionists have simply ignored the most serious (ahem) Darwin critics is plainly absurd.

LoL!

There have been numerous books and countless magazine and internet postings addressing and refuting all of the major arguments ID has to offer.

Liar.

Lies from liars are not evidence. You are a freak, Jerad.
At 1:01 PM, Joe G said…

For a person of faith, ID is not just an unnecessary choice; it is a harmful one.

Ignorant opinion.

It reduces God to a kind of holy tinkerer.

ID does no such thing.

It locates the divine in places of ignorance and obscurity

Bullshit.
At 1:07 PM, Joe G said…

If you were a mature adult you could make your points without swearing.

I have

AND you wouldn't keep saying things you know aren't true.

I don't. Just cuz you think what I say is not true that doesn't make it so. An adult would not falsely accuse others.

You deny things that have been pointed out to you many times. You deny that some theories and ideas and examples exist when you know they do.

Liar. It is very telling that you cannot produce any examples.

It was wrong? How can a fossil be wrong? Something like that was predicted to exist at that layer and that's where it was found.

They were looking for something specific and that had occurred millions of years before the time Tiktaalik lived. Your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing, Jerad.

And Joe says: if you don't show it to me it doesn't exist.

You CAN"T show it to anyone you bluffing faggot.

A vast majority of biologist (who have actually studied ALL the evidence and not just cherry-picked some) think it has.

Asshole, they don't have the EVIDENCE. They don't have any testable hypotheses. They don't have a theory and they don't have any models.

So what do they have, Jerad? Please be specific.
At 1:15 PM, Unknown said…

More moronic trope. As if that means that the entire flagellum evolved via blind watchmaker processes.

It means the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex. Please try and pay attention.

ID is about the DESIGN. We don't know how Stonehenge was designed and built so obviously the process is not required in order to A) determine intelligent design is present and B) study it.

He was talking about why ID is not science. Do you really try and understand things you read or do you just react to the words?

Lies from liars are not evidence. You are a freak, Jerad.

I was just showing you someone else's view. Someone who does keep up with publications and such. And the ideas of ID proponents have been examined and found deficient. You might disagree with the conclusions but you have to admit ID has been addressed. Especially after the Kitzmiller decision.

Ignorant opinion.

ID does no such thing.

Bullshit.

So, Christians can't agree on ID. How interesting. Maybe because the critics are right: it ain't science.

(stands well back from the anticipated flow of abuse)

I am really curious though: you are such a belligerent potty-mouth on this blog. Is that how you talk to your daughter? Tell her to 'fuck off' when you disagree with her?

And, by the way, you still haven't come up with an explanation for the trilobites. Or lots of other stuff either. Not your problem, that ID has no explanatory power I mean. But it is your choice to believe in something that is vacuous and ill-founded.

(stands back for another stream of abuse)

Honestly, you do have anger issues.
At 1:21 PM, Unknown said…

I don't. Just cuz you think what I say is not true that doesn't make it so. An adult would not falsely accuse others.

Like you do you mean? Calling people names is one of your habits isn't it?

Liar. It is very telling that you cannot produce any examples.

You constantly say there is no theory of evolution. There are whole books, lots of books, written about the theory of evolution. You just think you can say there isn't one for some reason.

They were looking for something specific and that had occurred millions of years before the time Tiktaalik lived. Your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing, Jerad.

Oh dear, Joe gets it wrong. Again.

You CAN"T show it to anyone you bluffing faggot.

Slander and abuse don't win arguments.

Asshole, they don't have the EVIDENCE. They don't have any testable hypotheses. They don't have a theory and they don't have any models.

So what do they have, Jerad? Please be specific.

I'm sorry you can't read and digest any of the (now literally hundreds) of books elucidating the theory and the evidence. Perhaps you should try a bit harder.

And work on your anger problem. The stress is going to kill you one day.
At 1:22 PM, Joe G said…

It means the flagellum is NOT irreducibly complex.

Only to a moron

He was talking about why ID is not science.

He was wrong.

I was just showing you someone else's view.

They were lies.

Someone who does keep up with publications and such. And the ideas of ID proponents have been examined and found deficient. You might disagree with the conclusions but you have to admit ID has been addressed.

They haven't been addressed. If you had any knowledge at all you would know this.

So, Christians can't agree on ID. How interesting. Maybe because the critics are right: it ain't science.

Let's see- unlike your position ID has actual testable entailments. That means it can be tested and potentially falsified. What else does it need to be science as it already has more than yours?

I am really curious though: you are such a belligerent potty-mouth on this blog.

Why are you such an ignorant asshole?

And, by the way, you still haven't come up with an explanation for the trilobites.

Hey dick, your position can't explain anything. It has to be given populations of prokaryotes to start and then it has nothing after that.

You have to be one ignorant asshole, Jerad. All you can do is lie and bluff. You are a pathetic little imp.
At 1:24 PM, Joe G said…

You constantly say there is no theory of evolution.

No one can link to it. Not even you. Strange, isn't it?

Oh dear, Joe gets it wrong. Again.

Moron. I can quote Shubin to support my claims, asshole.

I'm sorry you can't read and digest any of the (now literally hundreds) of books elucidating the theory and the evidence.

Bluffing faggot.
At 1:27 PM, Joe G said…

Real evidence for Jerad the coward to ignore:

Your Inner Fish- Chapter 1
At 1:43 PM, Unknown said…

Only to a moron

So, what part of the science is wrong? Find one of the papers where genes are knocked out and find the mistake. BE SPECIFIC. :-)

They were lies.

So, you haven't got any reason for saying so except that they contradict your view?

They haven't been addressed. If you had any knowledge at all you would know this.

Let's see . . . do I believe Joe who has little academic background, no publications and can't do Freshman level mathematics OR do I believe an actual biologist . . .

Let's see- unlike your position ID has actual testable entailments. That means it can be tested and potentially falsified. What else does it need to be science as it already has more than yours?

Too bad most of the biologists on the planet disagree with you. Oh well.

Hey dick, your position can't explain anything. It has to be given populations of prokaryotes to start and then it has nothing after that.

You have to be one ignorant asshole, Jerad. All you can do is lie and bluff. You are a pathetic little imp.

Joe can't even attempt to explain the trilobites. Noted. And he can't tell me if he swears at his daughter. Also noted.

No one can link to it. Not even you. Strange, isn't it?

The thing is some of has have tried and you've just denied what's been presented. So, not much point really is there. You've decided and you're NOT going to change your mind no matter what. You'll believe every word Spetner publishes but you can't even be bothered to follow the Discovery Institutes work. Fascinating.

Moron. I can quote Shubin to support my claims, asshole.

Really. Are you sure you understand what he's saying 'cause you seem to have comprehension problems along with your potty-mouth.

Bluffing faggot.

OMG, your debating skills are just so amazing!!

Real evidence for Jerad the coward to ignore:

HAHAHAHAHAHAAH According to your quotes Shubin says it WAS found in the right time period and then you, immediately after quoting him, say it wasn't.

And I thought you had a quote from him proving your point. Too bad you forgot to give that quote eh?

:-)
At 2:14 PM, Joe G said…

So, what part of the science is wrong?

The conclusion was wrong. If you can remove parts without having any effect then those parts were obviously not part of the IC core.

So, you haven't got any reason for saying so except that they contradict your view?

LoL! They were lies, that is why I called them lies.

Let's see . . . do I believe Joe who has little academic background, no publications and can't do Freshman level mathematics OR do I believe an actual biologist . . .

Joe goes by the actual EVIDENCE. Joe doesn't care what people say.

Too bad most of the biologists on the planet disagree with you.

Too bad you are so cowardly that you have to hide behind bullshit.

Joe can't even attempt to explain the trilobites.

Jerad's can't even attempt to explain the trilobites.

The thing is some of has have tried and you've just denied what's been presented.

No, Jerad. No one has ever tried to link to the actual theory of evolution. Assholes have shown that we can search on the term and get millions of hits. I can search on bigfoot and get millions of hits.

You are just another coward, Jerad.

OMG, your debating skills are just so amazing!!

LoL! Yours consist of lies and bluffs. Are you really that fucking daft?

According to your quotes Shubin says it WAS found in the right time period and then you, immediately after quoting him, say it wasn't.

You fucking moron. He said there wasn't any tetrapods before 380 million years ago and yet there is evidence for tetrapods 395 million years ago.

Are you really that fucking willfully ignorant that you can't even read?
At 2:19 PM, Joe G said…

I went to the Vassar page and there wasn't any citation for the alleged flagella experiment..
At 2:21 PM, Joe G said…

He said there weren't any tetrapods before 380 million years ago and yet there is evidence for tetrapods 395 million years ago.

(time to look to see if I can add an edit function)
At 5:26 PM, Unknown said…

The conclusion was wrong. If you can remove parts without having any effect then those parts were obviously not part of the IC core.

BUT Dr Behe said the structure was irreducibly complex. BUT it isn't!!

Please do try and keep up.

LoL! They were lies, that is why I called them lies.

Joe, doesn't have a reason, just knows it's wrong.

Joe goes by the actual EVIDENCE. Joe doesn't care what people say.

You're sure right on the second part: the opinions and evidence don't count, only Joe's opinion counts.

Too bad you are so cowardly that you have to hide behind bullshit.

I'm sorry but it is true that a vast majority of biologists think you're wrong. You can't deny that.

Jerad's can't even attempt to explain the trilobites.

Absolutely I can. At least make an attempt. The trilobites were part of the progression via universal descent with modification, from single celled creatures to more 'sophisticated' multi-organ, multi-system forms. There is a clear, fossil progression in which the trilobites feature. All consistent with universal comment descent with modification.

BUT you think the whole thing was designed. And designed means there has to be some explainable reason for all life forms. But you cannon provide that reason. Because you haven't got a theory which matches and explains the data.

No, Jerad. No one has ever tried to link to the actual theory of evolution. Assholes have shown that we can search on the term and get millions of hits. I can search on bigfoot and get millions of hits.

Well Joe, if you can't tell the difference between bigfoot and evolutionary theory that explains a lot.

You want everything handed to you on a plate or you deny it. Grow up and do some work yourself. You treat evolutionary theory the same way you treat advanced mathematics: you don't understand it so you decide it's wrong.

You are just another coward, Jerad.

At least I follow all the data. You deny everything.

LoL! Yours consist of lies and bluffs. Are you really that fucking daft?

Fortunately for me I've got millions of biologists on my side. You've got a few goofy merchants of doubt. And a crappy free blog where you can pretend that billions of words of research don't exist.

You fucking moron. He said there wasn't any tetrapods before 380 million years ago and yet there is evidence for tetrapods 395 million years ago.

Not in the quote you presented.

Are you really that fucking willfully ignorant that you can't even read?

Not in the quotes from Shubin you presented. You really need to learn to pay attention to what is actually said as opposed to what you think has been said.

I went to the Vassar page and there wasn't any citation for the alleged flagella experiment..

OMG, Joe can't find it so it doesn't exist!! Call the papers!!

He said there weren't any tetrapods before 380 million years ago and yet there is evidence for tetrapods 395 million years ago.

Not in the quotes from him you provide.

I tell you what though, even if you're right and the research you link to is right (one paper does not a truth make), who's to say that there wasn't a few million years where lots of fish and tetrapod and transitional forms existed AT THE SAME TIME!! That wouldn't prove the evolutionary model wrong. It would just show that the situation was a bit more complicated that it first appeared.

You sit on the sidelines and only look for inconsistencies. While doing no research of your own. And then you declare that the whole system is wrong.

And, you cannot deny, that it was predicted that a transitional form was expected to exist in a certain layer and it was found in that layer. Wasn't it? Can't deny that can you?

Can ID point to a similar prediction it has made? Can you show me a research prediction made by ID scientists which has been found to be true? Anything?
At 6:30 PM, Joe G said…

BUT Dr Behe said the structure was irreducibly complex.

It is, you just don't understand the concept.

You're sure right on the second part: the opinions and evidence don't count, only Joe's opinion counts.

Fuck you.

I'm sorry but it is true that a vast majority of biologists think you're wrong. You can't deny that.

That alleged "vast majority" cannot support their claims. You can't deny that.

The trilobites were part of the progression via universal descent with modification, from single celled creatures to more 'sophisticated' multi-organ, multi-system forms.

Evidence-free bullshit.

Well Joe, if you can't tell the difference between bigfoot and evolutionary theory that explains a lot.

Again with the cowardly bullshit. Duly noted.

You treat evolutionary theory

What evolutionary theory? Why can't you link to it?

Fortunately for me I've got millions of biologists on my side

And no evidence.

He said there wasn't any tetrapods before 380 million years ago and yet there is evidence for tetrapods 395 million years ago.

Not in the quote you presented.

What a dipshit. The tetrapod tracks were found AFTER he wrote that piece, asshole. Shubin was looking in the wrong place and time for what he was looking for.

I made my case and you just ignore it because you are an ignorant little wanker.

And, you cannot deny, that it was predicted that a transitional form was expected to exist in a certain layer and it was found in that layer. Wasn't it?

You are a dumbass. No one "predicts" that transitional forms will exist millions of years AFTER the transition.

AND the "prediction" didn't have anything to do with blind watchmaker evolution. That means you are a double dumbass.

I went to the Vassar page and there wasn't any citation for the alleged flagella experiment...

OMG, Joe can't find it so it doesn't exist!!

Umm, people have to cite the science they use in an argument. Don't blame me cuz you link to liars who are going to get called on their obvious bullshit.
At 1:10 AM, Unknown said…

Fuck you.

You can always tell when Joe is losing an argument because he resorts to swearing.

Evidence-free bullshit.

See.

Again with the cowardly bullshit. Duly noted.

:-)

What evolutionary theory? Why can't you link to it?

Not my fault you a) can't be bothered to look things up yourself b) you can't understand the theory when it is presented to you c) you're so entrenched in your position you can't admit that you might have made a mistake.

And no evidence.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

What a dipshit. The tetrapod tracks were found AFTER he wrote that piece, asshole. Shubin was looking in the wrong place and time for what he was looking for.

I made my case and you just ignore it because you are an ignorant little wanker.

Why don't you try and find out what he's said since that other discovery was made? Why don't you look at what real scientists do when new data is discovered.

Shubin predicted a fossil of a certain type would be found in a certain layer. They found a fossil of that type in that layer. So, how could he have been looking in the wrong place?

You are a dumbass. No one "predicts" that transitional forms will exist millions of years AFTER the transition.

And yet, they did predict what they would find and where. And they found it. What have you 'predicted' and when was your prediction proved true?

AND the "prediction" didn't have anything to do with blind watchmaker evolution. That means you are a double dumbass.

Well, if you think it WASN'T 'blind watchmaker' evolution then you have to back up your claim with a pattern and a process that explains the fossil. Which you can't do. You don't know how the designer worked. Or when. Or why. "We have to study the design first!!' Fine, do that. And THEN make a claim. How do you know what you've got if you haven't finished studying it yet eh?

Umm, people have to cite the science they use in an argument. Don't blame me cuz you link to liars who are going to get called on their obvious bullshit.

Why don't you read some research papers instead of websites if you're really interested? Can't be bothered or can't understand what you read?
At 1:26 AM, Unknown said…

You really are the perfect little ID foot soldier. You listen to your briefing, ask a few questions, get your marching orders and then defend your position to the death. You don't question your orders or your commanders, you just do your job trying to make the world a safe place for ID.

You buy the books and ignore the negative criticisms. You do your part with your blog and your contributions to other blogs to fight the good fight.

Meanwhile your higher-ups are writing their papers, sometimes avoiding dealing with the critiques of their non-peer reviewed books, sometimes avoiding standing up for their beliefs in court, hoping that, eventually, they'll be enough people like you who just accept that design is obvious.
At 6:19 AM, Joe G said…

You can always tell when Joe is losing an argument because he resorts to swearing.

You can always tell that Jerad is a lying little wanker because he never supports anything he posts and has to hide behind other people.

Not my fault you a) can't be bothered to look things up yourself

LoL! I have looked and the ToE doesn't exist. You are a little faggot.

b) you can't understand the theory when it is presented to you

Liar

Shubin predicted a fossil of a certain type would be found in a certain layer.

No one predicts that a transitional fossil will exist millions of years AFTER the transition occurred. That you are too fucking dim to grasp that fact proves that you are a willfully ignorant ass.

Well, if you think it WASN'T 'blind watchmaker' evolution then you have to back up your claim with a pattern and a process that explains the fossil.

No, dumbass. It is up to the people making the claim to support it. That means YOU have to support the claim that it was blind watchmaker evolution and you can't.

Why don't you read some research papers instead of websites if you're really interested?

I have. OTOH you haven't.
At 6:22 AM, Joe G said…

You really are the perfect little ID foot soldier. You listen to your briefing, ask a few questions, get your marching orders and then defend your position to the death. You don't question your orders or your commanders, you just do your job trying to make the world a safe place for ID.

And you are nothing but a gullible and cowardly wanker. You blindly accept everything people say as long as it agrees with your PoV. You cannot think for yourself. You are a moron.

You can't answer questions about set theory. You don't know anything about science and all you do is lie and bluff.

You are a typical evoTARD.
At 9:53 AM, Unknown said…

You can always tell that Jerad is a lying little wanker because he never supports anything he posts and has to hide behind other people.

I post links to things. You don't read them or understand them. Not my problem.

LoL! I have looked and the ToE doesn't exist. You are a little faggot.

You seem really fixated on faggots. Maybe you should talk to someone about that.

Liar

Did you parents lie to you a lot when you were a child? You seem to think everyone but you is a liar.

No one predicts that a transitional fossil will exist millions of years AFTER the transition occurred. That you are too fucking dim to grasp that fact proves that you are a willfully ignorant ass.

He predicted he would find a fossil of that type in that layer. And he did find what he said would be there.

No, dumbass. It is up to the people making the claim to support it. That means YOU have to support the claim that it was blind watchmaker evolution and you can't.

Ah but 'blind watchmaker evolution' is now the assumption and you are the ones making the claim. That's what the scientific consensus is all about. Please try and keep up. We're not in the 19th century anymore.

I have. OTOH you haven't.

And Joe knows 'cause he can read minds apparently.

And you are nothing but a gullible and cowardly wanker. You blindly accept everything people say as long as it agrees with your PoV. You cannot think for yourself. You are a moron.

You don't know me at all really. You don't know how or what I think. You don't know what intellectual journey I"ve gone through. You don't know what I used to believe.

I disagree with you though and you call me a liar and a moron. Sounds like you're the one who can't handle other points of view.

You can't answer questions about set theory. You don't know anything about science and all you do is lie and bluff.

Go on then, ask me a question about set theory. Real mathematical set theory. Not what you think set theory is or should be. This is the classic introductory book if you need a start:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chelsea-Publishing-American-Mathematics-Society/dp/0821826948

You are a typical evoTARD.

Not really. I actually bother to talk to you whereas most people who believe in evolution think it's a waste of time.
At 10:15 AM, Unknown said…

And please make sure you actually know what mathematical set theory really is before you start making ups stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
At 3:30 PM, Joe G said…

And please make sure you actually know what mathematical set theory really is before you start making ups stuff.

I know what it is you fucking loser. OTOH you cannot answer my questions about it.
At 3:36 PM, Joe G said…

I post links to things. You don't read them or understand them.

You haven't read them nor understood them as they don't support anything you say.

No one predicts that a transitional fossil will exist millions of years AFTER the transition occurred. That you are too fucking dim to grasp that fact proves that you are a willfully ignorant ass.

He predicted he would find a fossil of that type in that layer.

That is the story anyway. HOWEVER No one predicts that a transitional fossil will exist millions of years AFTER the transition occurred.

Why are you too stupid to understand that simple fact? Why aren't all the transitionals still around seeing that there isn't any time factor for their removal?

Ah but 'blind watchmaker evolution' is now the assumption and you are the ones making the claim.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You cannot assume what has to be demonstrated you scientifically ignorant douche.

I disagree with you though and you call me a liar and a moron.

You lie and that is why I call you a liar. You can't even understand the basics and that is why I call you a moron.

Go on then, ask me a question about set theory.

I already have and you refused to answer.
At 4:14 PM, Unknown said…

I know what it is you fucking loser. OTOH you cannot answer my questions about it.

Well go on, ask again and make me look stupid. Real set theory Joe. Something countably infinite would be nice.

You haven't read them nor understood them as they don't support anything you say.

We're talking about you Joe. You can't even seem to understand things in articles you say support your viewpoint. Calculate P(T|H) for us. You have a high IQ so it should be easy. Personally, I'd like someone to calculate phi(T) but I'm patient.

Here's a good one Joe: calculate the logarithm base 3 of 81. Easy peasy stuff really.

That is the story anyway. HOWEVER No one predicts that a transitional fossil will exist millions of years AFTER the transition occurred.

BUT he did predict where (in what layer implying a certain time frame) he would find a fossil exhibiting certain characteristics and then he found it!! Something we hadn't seen before. Right where the theory said it would be. Pretty cool eh?

Why are you too stupid to understand that simple fact? Why aren't all the transitionals still around seeing that there isn't any time factor for their removal?

What? A very small percentage of critters and plants become fossils. A 'time factor for their removal'? What does that mean? Designers set times for removal, like Apple deciding to abandon PPC chip architecture. Some variations exist for millions of years, some die out quickly. They're outcompeted or unlucky. Some of them are so short lived or so unlucky that they don't get fossilised. Good thing we have morphological and genomic data that is consistent with the fossil record then eh?

You cannot assume what has to be demonstrated you scientifically ignorant douche.

'blind watchmaker evolution' is now the accepted paradigm. Except to denialists like yourself. Because of the mountains and mountains of data, most of which you ignore or deny. You can piss and moan about it but sooner or later you'll have to deal with that fact.

You lie and that is why I call you a liar. You can't even understand the basics and that is why I call you a moron.

So, show me up. Explain the trilobites. Or calculate a P(T|H). Tell me when design was implemented WITHOUT resorting to your ID marching orders. Calculate the logarithm base 3 of 81. How about: find the antiderivative of (sin(x))^3. Find the sum of the infinite series 2 + 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + . . . Tell me if Zorn's lemma is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice. Tell me why the Travelling Salesman Problem is NP-Complete. Evaluate 64^(5/6). Find the volume generated by rotating the function 1/x about the x-axis from 1 to infinity. Why did the designer allow Polio and Leprosy and Malaria and The Plague and Ebola to come into existence to threaten his(?) star creation?

I already have and you refused to answer.

Go on, ask again and make me look stupid. Go on. You know you want to.
At 9:32 PM, Joe G said…

Calculate P(T|H) for us.

Provide H and I will.However you can't and it is your position that has to. But then again you are too ignorant to grasp that simple fact.

Here's a good one Joe: calculate the logarithm base 3 of 81. Easy peasy stuff really.

4 (3x3x3x3=81)

That is the story anyway. HOWEVER No one predicts that a transitional fossil will exist millions of years AFTER the transition occurred.

BUT he did predict where (in what layer implying a certain time frame) he would find a fossil exhibiting certain characteristics and then he found it!!

Obviously you are too willfully ignorant to grasp the point.

You cannot assume what has to be demonstrated you scientifically ignorant douche.

'blind watchmaker evolution' is now the accepted paradigm.

Why? It isn't even science.

Because of the mountains and mountains of data, most of which you ignore or deny.

Liar- I cannot deny that which doesn't exist. I was an evolutionist until I looked at the evidence.

Antony Flew was an atheist until he gave in to the evidence.

So, show me up

I have.

Go on, ask again and make me look stupid.

LoL! You look stupid enough as it is...
At 12:37 AM, Unknown said…

Provide H and I will.However you can't and it is your position that has to. But then again you are too ignorant to grasp that simple fact.

This is why we know you don't understand what Dr Dembski wrote.

P(T|H) is a conditional probability. Calculate the probability of T occurring GIVEN H. This is part of Dr Dembski's point: the probability of T EVEN GIVEN H is ridiculously, stupidly small. Go read his paper again.

4 (3x3x3x3=81)

Good! Two points.

Obviously you are too willfully ignorant to grasp the point.

Obviously you can't handle the fact that BEFORE they found Tiktaalik they predicted where they would find it.

Why? It isn't even science.

That's just you thinking it isn't science. You and those you take your marching orders from. Too bad they're using you as cannon fodder.

Liar- I cannot deny that which doesn't exist. I was an evolutionist until I looked at the evidence.

I can believe that given your poor grasp of evolutionary theory.

Antony Flew was an atheist until he gave in to the evidence.

Just because one boulder fell off the mountain does not bring the whole thing down. What about all the evolutionists who started off life as evangelical Christians? Should we play that numbers game and see who wins?

LoL! You look stupid enough as it is...

You can't come up with a real set theory question can you? Might as well just admit it like a real man would.

How about some of those other, undergraduate mathematical questions I posed for you? Seriously, most of those are Freshman or Sophomore issues. Or even High School.

32^(-3/5) say. Easy if you know how.
At 12:47 PM, Joe G said…

This is why we know you don't understand what Dr Dembski wrote.

That is why I know that you are an ignorant ass.

P(T|H) is a conditional probability. Calculate the probability of T occurring GIVEN H.

And YOU cannot give H for the BF.

Obviously you can't handle the fact that BEFORE they found Tiktaalik they predicted where they would find it.

Look, dumbass, they were looking for something that occurred millions of years BEFORE Tiktaalik existed. Tiktaalik only looks like a transitional and was NOT what they were looking for.

If you are looking for something that had occurred between Monday and Wednesday, and you find something that occurred months later, then you did NOT find what you were looking for. Duh.

That's just you thinking it isn't science.

Well it cannot be tested. It doesn't make any predictions and is useless as a research heuristic.

I can believe that given your poor grasp of evolutionary theory.

Yet I understand evolution better than you ever will. And no one can reference this evolutionary theory- weird.

What about all the evolutionists who started off life as evangelical Christians?

They still can't find any evidence that unguided evolution produced anything more then disease and deformities. And I am OK with that.

Antony Flew isn't the only one.

You can't come up with a real set theory question can you?

I already have and you choked. OTOH you are too stupid to know the difference between contrived and derived.
At 12:48 PM, Joe G said…

And Jerad, seeing that you also want to make this personal just come over here and get it over with.
At 1:46 PM, Unknown said…

That is why I know that you are an ignorant ass.

Seriously Joe, you really don't seem to understand what Dr Dembski wrote.

And YOU cannot give H for the BF.

As Dr Dembski wrote: H is the appropriate null/undirected hypothesis. That means a) you have to define what T you are examining before H can be decided upon and b( you are the one defending Dr Dembski's calculation so it's up to you to specify/define H.

This is all just obvious and clear but you don't get it.

Look, dumbass, they were looking for something that occurred millions of years BEFORE Tiktaalik existed. Tiktaalik only looks like a transitional and was NOT what they were looking for.

They said: we are looking for THIS, we expect to find it HERE, and they found what they said where they said it would be.

If you are looking for something that had occurred between Monday and Wednesday, and you find something that occurred months later, then you did NOT find what you were looking for. Duh.

But they weren't!! They found what they wanted where they said it would be!!

Well it cannot be tested. It doesn't make any predictions and is useless as a research heuristic.

I think I've covered that on the other thread.

Yet I understand evolution better than you ever will. And no one can reference this evolutionary theory- weird.

And, it seems, you can't be bothered to look for it.

They still can't find any evidence that unguided evolution produced anything more then disease and deformities. And I am OK with that.

And your ID can't explain the fossil record. Or the genomic record. Or morphology. Or the biogeographic distribution. And you, personally, don't even try.

You are making a claim against the majority/consensus opinion. You have to show that what you've got is good.

I already have and you choked. OTOH you are too stupid to know the difference between contrived and derived.

I do know the difference between those two terms. But contrived is not a mathematical term.

If you cannot come up with a real set theory question best to just admit it and move on.

And Jerad, seeing that you also want to make this personal just come over here and get it over with.

I'm sure you are actually a pretty nice guy. I bet you help your neighbours and friends out a lot. I suspect that if I were your friend and I had a problem you'd move heaven and earth to help me. And I admire and respect what you've done for your country and, by diffusion, for the world. And I'm quite serious and clear about that. If you need a defender in that regard you can count on me.

This isn't personal. I admire you in many ways.
At 3:54 PM, Joe G said…

Seriously Joe, you really don't seem to understand what Dr Dembski wrote.

Nice projection.

As Dr Dembski wrote: H is the appropriate null/undirected hypothesis.

Exactly! What do you think blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution is?

That means a) you have to define what T you are examining before H can be decided upon

Bacterial flagella- any one.

b( you are the one defending Dr Dembski's calculation so it's up to you to specify/define H.

You just defined H! H = blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution which means YOU need to provide it. You can't because your position is untestable bullshit.

They said: we are looking for THIS,

You are ignorant of the "THIS" part. You obviously have serious issues with reading and logic.

They found what they wanted

No, they didn't.

Well it cannot be tested. It doesn't make any predictions and is useless as a research heuristic.

I think I've covered that on the other thread.

And you choked.

Yet I understand evolution better than you ever will. And no one can reference this evolutionary theory- weird.

And, it seems, you can't be bothered to look for it.

Fuck you. Seems you can't fin d it either or you would just link to it and be done with it.

They still can't find any evidence that unguided evolution produced anything more then disease and deformities. And I am OK with that.

And your ID can't explain the fossil record. Or the genomic record. Or morphology. Or the biogeographic distribution. And you, personally, don't even try.

Yours csn't explain anything beyond disease and deformities.

You are making a claim against the majority/consensus opinion

LoL! As if science is done via consensus and majority. You are one ignorant asswipe.
I do know the difference between those two terms. But contrived is not a mathematical term.

One-to-one correspondence is and contrived is used in mathematics. Man your are ignorant.

If you cannot come up with a real set theory question

Another one? You choked on the lase real set theory questions I asked.
At 3:58 PM, Joe G said…

The derived relationship is the natural relationship that is used to determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another set.

Any other alleged one-to-one relationship between the two sets is contrived.
At 5:43 PM, Unknown said…

Nice projection.

But it's true Joe. Neither you nor KF can even come close to computing Dr Dembski's P(T|H) for a given example. You pick the example.

Exactly! What do you think blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution is?

Yes, but it's not up to us to come up with it!! You guys are making a claim. You have to come up with the hypotheses and the argument. Besides, if I gave you an H and it didn't work out well for you then you'd say I'd screwed up your calculation. Better if you stipulate H really.

Bacterial flagella- any one.

Good. So what H would you like to work with? Dr Dembski says it has to be appropriate. I'll let you pick.

You just defined H! H = blind watchmaker/ unguided evolution which means YOU need to provide it. You can't because your position is untestable bullshit.

Dr Dembski wrote that H for his calculation has to be the appropriate unguided hypothesis. Because I anticipate disagreement with you AND because you are the one making a claim against the accepted norm I'm gonna let you pick H.

You are ignorant of the "THIS" part. You obviously have serious issues with reading and logic.

Not really. I know how to work with conditional probabilities.

No, they didn't.

THEY DID!! They said: we will find this kind of fossil in this layer and that's what they found!!

And you choked.

Hard to say really since you responded to NONE of the links I posted.

Fuck you. Seems you can't fin d it either or you would just link to it and be done with it.

Perhaps you would like to seriously address the links I have posted.

They still can't find any evidence that unguided evolution produced anything more then disease and deformities. And I am OK with that.

All part of the great design eh? Your designer, what a class act. Millions or years of suffering and pain and death and waste. Your designer rocks.

Yours csn't explain anything beyond disease and deformities.

And how does ID explain disease and deformities. Like MS. Or MD. Or Leprosy. Or Lupus. Or even something simpler like ADHD.

I know you won't answer these queries because you always duck the real questions. But surely, in your heart, you do wonder . . .

LoL! As if science is done via consensus and majority. You are one ignorant asswipe.

Science isn't done that way. But some of the acceptance is.

One-to-one correspondence is and contrived is used in mathematics. Man your are ignorant.

One-to-one is used. Contrived I don't know. In mathematics. I think you had better rethink before you look really stupid.

Another one? You choked on the lase real set theory questions I asked.

Well, tell it to me again please. I can't find the thread.

The derived relationship is the natural relationship that is used to determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another set.

Well, in mathematics, it's obvious (usually) whether or not one set is or is not the subset of another. And the definition of subset is very clear. What are you saying?

Where did you copy and paste that quote from anyway? Give me more of the context and I'll be able to assess it more completely.

Any other alleged one-to-one relationship between the two sets is contrived.

What? Hang on . . .

A one-to-one correspondence between two sets is useful in helping to establish a) if the sets are 'the same size' or b) there is some rule/function lining them up against each other. Like a domain and a range for a function let's say.

Contrived is NOT one of the terms used I'm afraid. Unless you're trying to debunk someone's claim.
At 6:02 PM, Unknown said…

The derived relationship is the natural relationship that is used to determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another set.

This is all starting to sound a bit weird you know. Whether or not a set is a proper subset of another is, usually, a clear and clinical matter.

If you're trying to define or 'derive' a certain relationship then state your definitions clearly and unambiguously. And then state what your contention is.

Any other alleged one-to-one relationship between the two sets is contrived.

There are other reasons for looking for one-to-one correspondence between sets. Obviously.

Joe, it sounds like you're just copying and pasting stuff you don't understand. If that is what you are doing then copy and paste a bit more of the context so I at least know what you're getting at. Because right now you're not making sense.
At 6:48 PM, Joe G said…

Yes, but it's not up to us to come up with it!!

Yes it is you ignorant imp. Without providing H you prove that your claims are outside of science.

Dr Dembski wrote that H for his calculation has to be the appropriate unguided hypothesis

Yes, I know and we are waiting.

Tiktaalik- Shubin said he was looking for evidence of the transition. He did NOT say he was looking for something that looked like a transitional form. Obviously you are just a willfully ignorant dick.

And yes "contrive" is used in mathematics. What the fuck is wrong with you?
At 6:51 PM, Joe G said…

Whether or not a set is a proper subset of another is, usually, a clear and clinical matter.

It is clear because there is a one-to-one correspondence, meaning there is one and only one match between the elements of one set and some elements of the other set.

BTW I didn't copy and paste anything. You are just a moron who can't understand the basics.
At 12:40 AM, Joe G said…

Let's return to our problem of how to find relatives of the first fish to walk on land. In our grouping scheme, these creatures are somewhere between the "Everythings" and the "Everythings with limbs". Map this to what we know of the rocks, and there is strong geological evidence that the period from 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time.- Neil Shubin, "Your Inner Fish"

The simple fact is we now know that is wrong and that means they did not find what they were looking for.

Why is that so difficult to understand?
At 3:25 AM, Unknown said…

And yes "contrive" is used in mathematics. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Give me an example.

Contrive:

1. To plan with cleverness or ingenuity; devise: contrive ways to amuse the children.
2. To invent or fabricate, especially by improvisation: contrived a swing from hanging vines.
3. To plan with evil intent; scheme: contrived a plot to seize power.
4. To bring about, as by scheming; manage: somehow contrived to get past the guards unnoticed.

v.intr.
To form plans or schemes.

Derive:

1. (usually foll by from) to draw or be drawn (from) in source or origin; trace or be traced
2. (tr) to obtain by reasoning; deduce; infer
3. (tr) to trace the source or development of
4. (Chemistry) (usually foll by from) to produce or be produced (from) by a chemical reaction
5. (Mathematics) maths to obtain (a function) by differentiation

Contrive has no mathematical specific meaning that I know of.

It is clear because there is a one-to-one correspondence, meaning there is one and only one match between the elements of one set and some elements of the other set.

That's exactly what I kept telling you when I was demonstrating that there are just as many positive even integers as positive integers. But you never liked that or the logic. You can demonstrate a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of both sets:

1 –> 2
2 –> 4
3 –> 6
4 –> 8
etc.

So, the sets are the same size!!

BTW I didn't copy and paste anything. You are just a moron who can't understand the basics.

I do understand what a one-to-one correspondence is of course. But they way you're saying things is a bit garbled. But yes, it was Cantor's insight (and gave him a way of comparing infinite sets) to realise that setting up one-to-one correspondences was a way of dealing with infinities.

And, yes, it can be used to see if one set is a proper subset of another. That is all basic stuff. You just express it poorly.
At 6:41 AM, Unknown said…

The derived relationship is the natural relationship that is used to determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another set.

Any other alleged one-to-one relationship between the two sets is contrived.

This is just gibberish Joe.

You can have many derived relationships. Using derived in a general, non-analysis way. And that's the mathematics use of the term analysis, i.e. calculus.

Contrived means more a manipulation for a particular purpose. But it doesn't have a specific mathematical definition as derive does. But that specifically mathematical definition of derive is for calculus NOT set theory.

I'm sorry but it does sound like you're just flailing away with copy-and-paste. You don't need a 'derived' relationship to talk about subsets. That's just a matter of defining terms. And one-to-one correspondences (in a thread last year(?) I used to abbreviate it as 1-to-1, was that confusing?) are used to establish that which you vehemently denied, that some infinite sets are the same size (or have the same cardinality if you want to be mathy about it).

Besides, you still haven't asked me a proper set theory question. You've just flung some terms about. I looked over the thread again. No question from you. Nada.
At 9:53 AM, Joe G said…

This is just gibberish Joe

To an ignorant asshole, I am sure it is.

Contrived means more a manipulation for a particular purpose

And that is exactly what Cantor did.

1 –> 2
2 –> 4
3 –> 6
4 –> 8
etc.

So, the sets are the same size!!

You are a fucking idiot. The 4s would be the one-to-one correspondence. ALL OF THE SAME NUMBERS WOULD BE THE ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE JUST AS USED TO DETERMINE IF ONE SET IS A PROPER SUBSET OF THE OTHER!

You are just a willfully ignorant asswipe, Jerad. What the fuck is wrong with you?
At 12:41 PM, William Spearshake said…

"No, I don't know any such thing. And I have seen plenty of biologists try to refute Behe's IC"

No, what you have seen is plenty of biologists successfully refute Behe's IC. The fact that you are incapable of thinking rationally is your problem, not ours.
At 12:44 PM, Joe G said…

No one has ever seen anyone refute IC. You are just another liar and coward.
At 12:52 PM, Unknown said…

Contrived means more a manipulation for a particular purpose

Yes but that is not a meaning restricted to a mathematical context!! So I don't think of contrived being a mathematical term. It's just a general term which is not strictly defined in a mathematical context.

You are a fucking idiot. The 4s would be the one-to-one correspondence. ALL OF THE SAME NUMBERS WOULD BE THE ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE JUST AS USED TO DETERMINE IF ONE SET IS A PROPER SUBSET OF THE OTHER!

Look, you can put the positive evens and the positive integers (and the multiples of 4 for that matter) into a one-to-one correspondence so the set of all positive evens is the same size as the set of all positives is the same size as the set of multiples of 4. They are all countably infinite. That's what Cantor figured out. BUT the size of the set containing all the real numbers is bigger. Also infinite but bigger.

The set of the evens IS a proper subset of the positive integers AND the size of the sets is the same. Get used to it.

You are just a willfully ignorant asswipe, Jerad. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Not a thing. I've done real set theory. You, clearly, have not. You will find, if you read Kaplansky's book, that I am right and you are wrong. It's that simple.

Nothing personal.
At 12:53 PM, William Spearshake said…

"ID is about the DESIGN. We don't know how Stonehenge was designed and built so obviously the process is not required in order to A) determine intelligent design is present and B) study it"

True, we may not know how it was designed, but you will never hear a real scientist say that we should not examine this. But anyone criticizes creationism for not postulating the nature if the designer and the mechanism used, creationists like yourself and Gordon Mullings throw a childish his say fit and say that we are not allowed to ask those questions. Followed, of course, by a banination.

But please don't change. Your childish antics are not intellectually enlightening, but they are certainly entertains.

Btw, Merry Christmas.
At 12:55 PM, William Spearshake said…

"You CAN"T show it to anyone you bluffing faggot"

And a homophobe as well.

But why we are on the subject, how does creationism explain homosexuality?
At 12:59 PM, Joe G said…

True, we may not know how it was designed, but you will never hear a real scientist say that we should not examine this.

ID is all about the detection and examination of intelligent designs.

But anyone criticizes creationism for not postulating the nature if the designer and the mechanism used,

Those are SEPARATE questions you ignorant asshole.

BTW my daughter's god-father is gay.
At 1:01 PM, Joe G said…

The set of the evens IS a proper subset of the positive integers AND the size of the sets is the same.

That is what your very limited intellect believes, anyway.

The natural correspondence is for the same numbers to be matched. It isn't my fault that you are incapable of understanding that simple fact.
At 1:02 PM, William Spearshake said…

"LoL! I have looked and the ToE doesn't exist. You are a little faggot"

Again with the homophobia. Do you hate Jews and blacks as well?
At 1:04 PM, Joe G said…

Look, you can put the positive evens and the positive integers (and the multiples of 4 for that matter) into a one-to-one correspondence so the set of all positive evens is the same size as the set of all positives is the same size as the set of multiples of 4.

Contrived- as I said you are obviously proud to be ignorant.
At 1:05 PM, Joe G said…

William Dicklick- to me the word "faggot" does not pertain to homosexuals. True they can be but it isn't necessary.
At 1:05 PM, William Spearshake said…

"No one predicts that a transitional fossil will exist millions of years AFTER the transition occurred. That you are too fucking dim to grasp that fact proves that you are a willfully ignorant ass."

So, the fact that a transitional fossil can survive for a long time is proof against evolution? How? Please enlighten us.
At 1:08 PM, Joe G said…

LoL! Nice ignorant spewage. Try again and this time try to be coherent
At 1:21 PM, William Spearshake said…

Unknown, maybe you should ask him if wavelength = frequency.
At 1:23 PM, Unknown said…

The set of the evens IS a proper subset of the positive integers AND the size of the sets is the same.

That is what your very limited intellect believes, anyway.

Me and thousands/millions of mathematicians. In fact Joe I'd say that you are in a very limited (small) set of people who think otherwise. And, clearly, you do not understand set theory. It does take a bit of . . . mind bending. I have the same problem when trying to wrap my head around the fact that the speed of light is the same for all inertial frames of reference. It doesn't feel right.

The natural correspondence is for the same numbers to be matched. It isn't my fault that you are incapable of understanding that simple fact.

You can define any correspondence you like that suits your purposes. You can even 'contrive' them if you wish.

The point that Cantor figured out was that there are different sizes of infinity. He furthermore determined what the smallest infinity is. We call it aleph-naught or the size of the set containing all the positive integers. That is referred to as countably infinite. Any set which can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the positive integers is also said to be countably infinite. That includes the multiples of 2, the multiples of 3, the odd numbers. the rational numbers (there's a nice proof of that), BUT not the real numbers. The size of that infinity is larger. In a manner of speaking. I'm not being very precise but I'm just trying to get the general idea across.

Contrived- as I said you are obviously proud to be ignorant.

Contrived is just a word Joe. It doesn't have any negative connotation in mathematics.

AND, as I said, any set which can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the positive integers is said to be countably infinite.

You can bitch and moan about it but this is now accepted mathematics. Look it up!!

You'll want a reference won't you. Sigh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_set

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality
At 1:23 PM, Joe G said…

Well, dicklick, for every wavelength there is one and only one frequency. To educated people that means wavelength = frequency. So what is your problem?
At 1:46 PM, Unknown said…

William Dicklick- to me the word "faggot" does not pertain to homosexuals. True they can be but it isn't necessary.

Don't argue with Joe about such things William. He thinks he's clever using hate-filled speech and then trying to weasel out of it.

Anyway, he doesn't hate everyone. Just people who disagree with him and stand up to him. He's like KF in that way: can't bear to let someone else have the last word and/or be proven wrong. The really funny part comes when they refuse to address references they've asked for. They just claim it's lies or "spewage" or that you're poisoning the well. All because you have good reasons for disagreeing with them. It's all pretty predictable really.
At 2:43 PM, Joe G said…

Yes, Jerad is finally right! I hate liars and pathetic impish cowards. And evoTARDs fit the bill and I treat them accordingly. It isn't that they disagree, it is that they are pathological liars and total cowards.
At 2:48 PM, Joe G said…

Me and thousands/millions of mathematicians.

Great, a moron support group

And, clearly, you do not understand set theory

So you say yet cannot demonstrate

You can define any correspondence you like that suits your purposes

There is one and only one natural correspondence that does not require our intervention to contrive. As I have said, obviously you are too limited to grasp that simple fact.

The point that Cantor figured out was that there are different sizes of infinity

My point is there are more than he realized.

AND, as I said, any set which can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the positive integers is said to be countably infinite.

I have never said nor implied otherwise. Obviously you have delusions of something.
At 2:52 PM, Joe G said…

Again, the natural/ derived one-to-one correspondence is the one used to determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another.

You can define any correspondence you like that suits your purposes. You can even 'contrive' them if you wish.

So set theory wrt infinite sets is now subjective? That makes it useless.
At 3:14 PM, Unknown said…

AND, as I said, any set which can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the positive integers is said to be countably infinite.

I have never said nor implied otherwise. Obviously you have delusions of something.

Ah but you did.

You said, many times that there were more positive integers than there are even integers. BUT those two sets can be put into a simple one-to-one correspondence which shows the sets are the same infinite size.

Again, the natural/ derived one-to-one correspondence is the one used to determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another.

But sometimes there isn't one. Or there's more than one. How would you assign a one-to-one correspondence between the rational numbers and the counting numbers? Such a correspondence exists but I don't think it's obvious or 'natural'. Derived isn't really the right term to use here.

So set theory wrt infinite sets is now subjective? That makes it useless.

Not at all. I'm just saying that the correspondence you use is not as important as it is to find one.

My point is there are more than he realized.

Hw many infinities do you think there are then? How many do you think Cantor thought there were? These are good questions.
At 9:06 AM, Joe G said…

Ah but you did.

Liar.

You said, many times that there were more positive integers than there are even integers.

That doesn't support your claim about me. Try again.

BUT those two sets can be put into a simple one-to-one correspondence which shows the sets are the same infinite size.

It is a CONTRIVED correspondence that does that. Also we can subtract the positive even integers from the positive integers and have a set of positive odd integers left. How would that be possible if the two sets were the same size?

Again, the natural/ derived one-to-one correspondence is the one used to determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another.

But sometimes there isn't one

Don't move the goalposts just because you are losing the argument.

I'm just saying that the correspondence you use is not as important as it is to find one.

LoL! The only correspondence to use is the derived one - if it exists.

Hw many infinities do you think there are then?

More than Cantor realized.
At 10:59 AM, Unknown said…

You said, many times that there were more positive integers than there are even integers.

That doesn't support your claim about me. Try again.

Well, you've changed your tune. For the better I think.

It is a CONTRIVED correspondence that does that. Also we can subtract the positive even integers from the positive integers and have a set of positive odd integers left. How would that be possible if the two sets were the same size?

There's nothing wrong with a contrived example. I don't know where your focusing on that term comes from.

All three of those sets: the positive integers, the positive even integers and the positive odd integers are the same size. That's what Cantor showed.

Maybe you haven't changed your tune . . . I sense some confusion yet.

Again, the natural/ derived one-to-one correspondence is the one used to determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another.

Any one-to-one correspondence that works is fine.

Show me a definition that says natural and derived are synonymous.

Don't move the goalposts just because you are losing the argument.

I'm not really. I just understand set theory.

LoL! The only correspondence to use is the derived one - if it exists.

I think you'd better show me a definition of a derived correspondence 'cause I don't think it means what you think it means.

Hw many infinities do you think there are then?

More than Cantor realized.

How many did Cantor realise then?

(I know it's fun for you to NOT answer questions but you can't run forever.)
At 11:03 AM, Unknown said…

Partly because I don't expect Joe to bother to try and justify his use of the terms contrived and derived in terms of one-to-one correspondences I thought I'd have a look myself. In case I did miss something. I did find this:

http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/cheltsov/quotient/pdf/CT.pdf

Which starts off:

"A derived approach to geometric McKay
correspondence in dimension three
By Sabin Cautis at Houston and Timothy Logvinenko at Stockholm
Abstract. We propose a three dimensional generalization of the geometric McKay
correspondence described by Gonzales-Sprinberg and Verdier in dimension two. We work
it out in detail in abelian case. More precisely, we show that the Bridgeland-King-Reid
derived category equivalence induces a natural geometric correspondence between irreducible
representations of G and subschemes of the exceptional set of G-HilbðC3
Þ. This correspondence
appears to be related to Reid’s recipe.
1. Introduction
The study of the McKay correspondence began with an observation by John McKay
in [11] that there exists a bijective correspondence between irreducible representations of a
finite subgroup G LSL2ðCÞ and exceptional divisors of the minimal resolution Y of C2
=G.
Gonzales-Sprinberg and Verdier in [6] gave a geometric construction of this correspondence.
The aim of this paper is to give a generalization of this construction for dimension
three. Our approach is via the derived McKay equivalence of [1] and for G abelian it
appears to give a categorification of ‘Reid’s recipe’ from [13].
The original construction of [6] is as follows. Denote by K GðC2
Þ the Grothendieck
ring of G-equivariant coherent sheaves on C2 and by KðYÞ the Grothendieck ring of Y.
Let M A CohðY C2
Þ be the structure sheaf of the reduced fiber product Y C2=G C2
.
Define the transform Y : K GðC2
Þ ! KðYÞ by
YðÞ ¼
pY

Mnp
C2 ðÞG ð1:1Þ
where pY and pC2 are the projections from Y C2 to Y and C2
.

Obviously most of the formatting was lost but you can check out the link.

Is that the way you meant derived Joe?
At 11:06 AM, Unknown said…

Then there's this:

http://orca.cf.ac.uk/45322/1/reids-recipe-and-derived-categories.pdf

"REID’S RECIPE AND DERIVED CATEGORIES
TIMOTHY LOGVINENKO
Abstract. We prove two conjectures from [CL09] which describe the geometrical McKay
correspondence for a finite abelian G ⊂ SL3(C) such that C
3
/G has a single isolated singularity.
We do it by studying the relation between the derived category mechanics of computing a
certain Fourier-Mukai transform and a piece of toric combinatorics known as ‘Reid’s recipe’,
effectively providing a categorification of the latter.
1. Introduction
The classical McKay correspondence is a one-to-one correspondence
Irr(G) \ ρ0
o
1-to-1 / Exc(Y )
between the non-trivial irreducible representations of a finite subgroup G of SL2(C) and the
irreducible exceptional divisors on the minimal resolution Y of the singular quotient space
C
2/G. It first arose from an observation by McKay in [McK80] which implied a coincidence of
the representation graph of G, less the trivial representation ρ0, and the intersection graph of
Exc(Y ). Gonzales-Sprinberg and Verdier in [GSV83] gave a geometric construction where this
coincidence was shown to arise naturally from a K-theory isomorphism Θ : KG(C
3
) → K(Y )
between the G-equivariant K-theory of C
2 and the K-theory of Y . In modern language, Θ
is defined by identifying Y with G-Hilb(C
2
), the fine moduli space of G-clusters1
in C
2
, and
setting Θ to be the K-theoretic Fourier-Mukai transform defined by the universal G-cluster
family M on Y × C
2
Θ(−) =
πY ∗
M
⊗ π
∗
C2 (−)
G
where πY and πC2 are projections from Y × C
2
to Y and C
2
, respectively. The functor
[−]
G
: KG(Y ) → K(Y ) is the functor of taking the G-invariant part of a G-sheaf. It was then
proved in [GSV83] that for every ρ ∈ Irr(G) \ ρ0 there exists a unique Eρ ∈ Exc(Y ) such that
Θ(O0 ⊗ρ) =
OEρ
(−1)
, where O0 is the skyscraper sheaf of the origin (0, 0) ∈ C
2
. The group
G acts on Y trivially, so every G-sheaf F on Y splits up as a direct sum L
ρ∈Irr(G) Fρ ⊗ ρ
where each Fρ is a G-invariant sheaf called the ρ-eigensheaf of F. Observe that not only we
have [F]
G = Fρ0
, by definition, but more generally [F ⊗ ρ]
G = Fρ∨ for every ρ ∈ Irr(G).
Thus by looking at Θ(O0 ⊗ ρ) we are looking at how does πY ∗
M|Exc(Y
)×{0}

break up into
G-eigensheaves. Very roughly, to obtain the correspondence Irr(G)\ρ0 ↔ Exc(Y ) we break up
the exceptional set of Y with respect to the G-action on its natural G-cluster scheme structure
and observe that for each non-trivial ρ ∈ Irr(G) we get a different irreducible curve.
In"

Is that what you meant by derived Joe, the phrase one-to-on does appear . . .
At 11:08 AM, Unknown said…

Interestingly enough when I searched the innertubes for

"contrived one-to-one correspondence"

I got no mathematical references at all.

I wonder if contrived has a real, solid mathematical meaning after all or if it's just being used as it is in common, everyday English . . .
At 11:36 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad, You have serious issues.

Well, you've changed your tune.

No, I haven't. You are just an asshole who makes shit up from what I actually post.

All three of those sets: the positive integers, the positive even integers and the positive odd integers are the same size.

They cannot be for the reasons already provided.

That's what Cantor showed.

No, he didn't. He just asserted it.

Any one-to-one correspondence that works is fine.

If that is true then the concept is meaningless and useless.

contrived:

Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural; labored.

contrived

having an unnatural or false appearance or quality

I think you'd better show me a definition of a derived correspondence 'cause I don't think it means what you think it means.

How do you think one set is determined to be a proper subset of another? The derived correspondence.
At 11:43 AM, Unknown said…

All three of those sets: the positive integers, the positive even integers and the positive odd integers are the same size.

They cannot be for the reasons already provided.

They are all countably infinite.

No, he didn't. He just asserted it.

You don't understand Set Theory. Clearly.

If that is true then the concept is meaningless and useless.

You really don't understand mathematics.

contrived:

Obviously planned or calculated; not spontaneous or natural; labored.

contrived

having an unnatural or false appearance or quality

Perfectly good definitions. But not useful in a mathematical context.

Look Joe, I tried. I looked. I can't find a definition that's specific to Set Theory of contrived v derived correspondence.

How do you think one set is determined to be a proper subset of another? The derived correspondence.

That's just gobbly-gook Joe. I don't know where you got it from (and you're too scared to tell me) but it makes no sense.

You bitch and moan and whine about how others won't take up your challenges but you run away from so many questions and challenges you make the rest of us look like we're standing still.

Copy and paste the reference you're using for this contrived and derived silliness.
At 12:04 PM, Joe G said…

They are all countably infinite.

That doesn't make them all the same size. That makes them all part of the same class.

You don't understand Set Theory

That's your unsupported opinion. You are obviously very limited, intellectually speaking.

You really don't understand mathematics.

You are a pathological liar.

Perfectly good definitions. But not useful in a mathematical context.

That's your uneducated opinion.

That's just gobbly-gook Joe.

Looks like YOU are ignorant of Set Theory. Tell us, Jerad, how do we determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another?

You bitch and moan and whine about how others won't take up your challenges but you run away from so many questions and challenges you make the rest of us look like we're standing still.

LoL! I challenge people to support their claims and the claims of their position. OTOH you want to make this personal. So meet me and I will give you answer your challenges.
At 1:59 PM, Unknown said…

They are all countably infinite.

That doesn't make them all the same size. That makes them all part of the same class.

Nope, that means that those sets all have the same cardinality, .i.e. they are the same size.

You don't understand Set Theory

That's your unsupported opinion. You are obviously very limited, intellectually speaking.

That is not just my opinion since you have frequently shown an ignorance of the results and definitions of Set Theory.

You are a pathological liar.

I'm not pretending to understand something I don't actually understand.

That's your uneducated opinion.

No, that's my educated opinion. I have actually taken courses in the topics in question.

Looks like YOU are ignorant of Set Theory. Tell us, Jerad, how do we determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of another?

You show that all the elements of one set are members of the other set. Depending on how the sets are defined or elucidated this can be obvious or somewhat tricky.

LoL! I challenge people to support their claims and the claims of their position. OTOH you want to make this personal. So meet me and I will give you answer your challenges.

Joe, I have defended my mathematical positions and you have constantly refused to accept those statements. You have refused to answer questions which would clarify your level of understanding. You have blatantly ignored some questions and challenges. You claim that others have ignored your challenges when they have made an attempt (by your standards) to rise to the occasion.

I'm not sure what you think you're doing. Are you just trying to waste our time? If you have a real point then a) why are you so reluctant to defend your 'evolutionary' model b) why do you continually throw up challenges and then run away and ignore counter-challenges c) what is it with all the verbal abuse?

I thought I could really engage with you about something I really do know something about, mathematics. But you're just as much of a ghost about that as you are about anything else. No substance, no stance. No real understanding.
At 2:53 PM, Joe G said…

Fuck you, Jerad:

We can subtract the positive even integers from the positive integers and have a set of positive odd integers left. How would that be possible if the two sets were the same size?

You show that all the elements of one set are members of the other set

And THAT is the derived relationship. I have only been explaining that to you for how many months?
At 2:56 PM, Joe G said…

a) why are you so reluctant to defend your 'evolutionary' model

I have- your ignorance means nothing to me. OTOH you can't support anything

b) why do you continually throw up challenges and then run away and ignore counter-challenges

If no one takes up my challenges why should I care what they have to say until they do?

c) what is it with all the verbal abuse?

What is it with all of your lies, bluffing and false accusations?

What is it with your inability to think for yourself?

What difference would it make if Cantor was wrong and I am right? I bet it wouldn't make any difference at all except textbooks would have to be changed.
At 4:05 PM, Joe G said…

Google "set subtraction", Jerad
At 1:49 AM, Unknown said…

We can subtract the positive even integers from the positive integers and have a set of positive odd integers left. How would that be possible if the two sets were the same size?

This is what Cantor showed, that the arithmetic of infinite sets works differently. IF you ever really had taken a Set Theory course then you would at least be aware of that. But you aren't so clearly you haven't.

And THAT is the derived relationship. I have only been explaining that to you for how many months?

And you have not been able to show a source/book/website where that use of the term 'derived' is explained. I know why you haven't, because you can't. It doesn't exist.

What difference would it make if Cantor was wrong and I am right? I bet it wouldn't make any difference at all except textbooks would have to be changed.

This has all been looked at, argued over, debated, etc OVER 100 YEARS AGO. You don't know because you don't know the history and you've CLEARLY never taken a Set Theory course. If you had you would at least know how to defend your mathematical use of the terms 'derived' and 'contrived'. You can't/won't do that which tells me your mathematical training is practically nil.

Google "set subtraction", Jerad

I know how to do set subtraction Joe. And I'm familiar with 100+ year old mathematics.

And I don't pretend to know stuff I don't know.

Enjoy being stuck in the 19th century mathematically. Actually, you're not even there as your understanding of Calculus is pretty minimal at best. Shall we say . . . 17th century? 16th? I leave it up to you. Prove me wrong anytime.
At 10:52 AM, Joe G said…

This is what Cantor showed, that the arithmetic of infinite sets works differently

He did NOT show that. He just asserted it. Obviously you don't know the difference between show and assert.

IF you ever really had taken a Set Theory course then you would at least be aware of that

You are a moron- I disagree with Cantor because he never demonstrated anything. His is just an assertion

And you have not been able to show a source/book/website where that use of the term 'derived' is explained.

I can't help it if you are a willfully ignorant asswipe, Jerad.

What difference would it make if Cantor was wrong and I am right? I bet it wouldn't make any difference at all except textbooks would have to be changed.

This has all been looked at, argued over, debated, etc OVER 100 YEARS AGO. You don't know because you don't know the history and you've CLEARLY never taken a Set Theory course. If you had you would at least know how to defend your mathematical use of the terms 'derived' and 'contrived'. You can't/won't do that which tells me your mathematical training is practically nil.

You cowardly piece of shit. You are a pathetic little imp. Go fuck yourself as you are one ignorant and cowardly bitch
At 10:53 AM, Joe G said…

I know how to do set subtraction Joe.

Obviously not.
At 2:10 PM, Unknown said…

I'm not going to have a lot of time to continue this discussion over the next few days sadly. But I will try and return next week.

By then I hope you have found a reference for your math-specific uses of 'contrived' and 'derived' since I'm unable to do so. I did look. You are always asking others to justify their statements but you seem incapable of doing the same. Makes you look cowardly.

You are not capable of refuting Cantors work; you don't even understand it. It's been scrutinised and examined by generations of mathematicians.

Anyway, have a nice Christmas.
At 4:08 PM, Joe G said…

By then I hope you have found a reference for your math-specific uses of 'contrived' and 'derived' since I'm unable to do so. I did look.

That is a contrived requirement and as such means nothing to me.

You are always asking others to justify their statements but you seem incapable of doing the same.

That is your opinion. I say that I have justified my claims. I can't help it if you remain willfully ignorant.

You are not capable of refuting Cantors work

What work? All he did was throw his hands in the ar, say the cardinality is the same and contrived a "proof". Don't blame me because you are incapable of seeing that.

you don't even understand it.

Another bullshit opinion. You seem to be full of those.

It's been scrutinised and examined by generations of mathematicians.

And yet no one can tell me what use it is to say that the cardinality of all countable and infinite sets are the same. It doesn't have any utility and appears to be totally subjective.

AND every time I bring tat up you cower like the ignorant bitch that you are.

Anyway, when you feel up to actually addressing what I say as opposed to playing childish word games, I will be here ready to listen. However it is a given that you will stay your course so I won't be waiting for anything of substance, as usual.
At 4:08 PM, Joe G said…

By then I hope you have found a reference for your math-specific uses of 'contrived' and 'derived' since I'm unable to do so. I did look.

That is a contrived requirement and as such means nothing to me.

You are always asking others to justify their statements but you seem incapable of doing the same.

That is your opinion. I say that I have justified my claims. I can't help it if you remain willfully ignorant.

You are not capable of refuting Cantors work

What work? All he did was throw his hands in the ar, say the cardinality is the same and contrived a "proof". Don't blame me because you are incapable of seeing that.

you don't even understand it.

Another bullshit opinion. You seem to be full of those.

It's been scrutinised and examined by generations of mathematicians.

And yet no one can tell me what use it is to say that the cardinality of all countable and infinite sets are the same. It doesn't have any utility and appears to be totally subjective.

AND every time I bring tat up you cower like the ignorant bitch that you are.

Anyway, when you feel up to actually addressing what I say as opposed to playing childish word games, I will be here ready to listen. However it is a given that you will stay your course so I won't be waiting for anything of substance, as usual.
At 3:07 AM, Unknown said…

Canter did not just throw his hands in the air. Have you read his work? If no then how do you know?

Please give me at least one source that uses 'contrived' and 'derived' in the same way you do regarding one-to-one correspondences in set theory. I know what you've said but I'd like to see how someone else uses the same terms in a math specific context.

It's fair to ask what use Cantor's work is. It has great use within mathematics, not much in daily life because we don't deal with infinite sets often depending on how you look at things. Cantor's work establishes that there are more real numbers between 1 and 2 than there are integers; I find that enlightening.

I would say too that the practice of defining useful one-to-one correspondences can be quite useful in
Computer science even if the sets aren't infinite. When handling large data sets it's common to put them into an array or matrix. Each cell of the array will have 1, 2, 3 or more indexes associated with it depending on the dimensions of the data. You may also have a list do the data in the order in which they were recorded (which sets up a one-to-one correspondence between the counting numbers and your data). It's very useful to be able to link between the array and the list BUT the may not be in the array in an order that's easy to visually parse.

Friends of mine 'record' the facades of buildings using a full station theodolight linked to a laser range finder. The equipment records millions of data points (which is in a list) but then later it must be graphed as a
3D surface. Sure the machine handles all that but someone has to write the software.

MRI machines handle billions of data points when generating their images. Okay, not infinite but pretty damn big. You have to use special techniques when handling such data sets.

My father was once asked (by a physicist) to make a perfectly straight tube 30m long. He told them it couldn't be done BUT how close was good enough? +/- 1cm. 1/2cm? 1/4cm? 1/8? When in that infinite series do you get close enough to your theoretical requirements?

Let's say the electrical properties of a circuit depend on the function [3sin(10-t)]/(10-t) and you want to know what's happening at t = 10. If you plug in t = 10 you get 0/0 which makes no sense. If you graph the function it looks fine as you approach t = 10. Cantor's work gives us tools to handle that situation rigorously. (In this case 0/0 is NOT 1 but sometimes it is. Graph the function to see what it is!!)
At 8:44 AM, Joe G said…

Canter did not just throw his hands in the air.

In this case, he did.

Please give me at least one source that uses 'contrived' and 'derived' in the same way you do regarding one-to-one correspondences in set theory.

That isn't any requirement.

It's fair to ask what use Cantor's work is.

The part we are debating obviously isn't of any use as no one uses it for anything.

Obviously you have serious issues, Jerad. We are debating one thing and you keep on bringing up irrelevant shit. For example:

I would say too that the practice of defining useful one-to-one correspondences can be quite useful in
Computer science even if the sets aren't infinite

Irrelevant to what we are discussing

When handling large data sets it's common to put them into an array or matrix.

Irrelevant

Each cell of the array will have 1, 2, 3 or more indexes associated with it depending on the dimensions of the data. You may also have a list do the data in the order in which they were recorded (which sets up a one-to-one correspondence between the counting numbers and your data). It's very useful to be able to link between the array and the list BUT the may not be in the array in an order that's easy to visually parse.

All irrelevant to the point we are discussing! It's as if you are just a little clueless asshole

Friends of mine 'record' the facades of buildings using a full station theodolight linked to a laser range finder. The equipment records millions of data points (which is in a list) but then later it must be graphed as a
3D surface. Sure the machine handles all that but someone has to write the software.

More irrelevant bullshit.

Not one thing you posted has to do with saying all countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are just a fucking loser and obviously proud of it.
At 2:04 AM, Unknown said…

Please give an example of someone else using 'contrived' and 'derived' in the same set theory specific way you do.

I was trying to give examples of why the concepts we are discussing are useful.

Since you don't accept what everyone else does that matching sets up one-to-one (both finite and infinite) is a way of establishing that the sets have the same size (and the sets that can be matched with the positive integers are said to be countably infinite) then I don't know what else to say. A century of mathematicians have accepted this. I've tried to explain how it works and given some examples.

The trouble I see with your approach (that the cardinality of the evens is infinite but a lesser infinite than the cardinality nof the positive integers) is that you get an infinity of infinities and you'll have a hard time working with them. For example:

What is the cardinality of the set of all (x, y) pairs of positive integers?

What is the cardinality of the positive integers subtract the primes? Is that bigger or smaller than the cardinality of the positive integers subtract the perfect squares? And how does that set compare with the set of all positive integers subtract the perfect cubes?

Those kind of issues get harder and harder to deal with. Cantor figured out that it doesn't work like that. You have to think differently with infinite sets.

The countably infinite label was convenient because we call the positive integers the counting numbers and their set is infinite. So any other set the same size is countably infinite. Same size means having the same cardinality.

It is a bit weird to grasp at first. Take a set theory course and things will be much clearer I'm sure.
At 7:02 AM, Rich Hughes said…

Chubs meltdown. Clearly toaster repair never got that complicated.
At 9:32 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad- By your "logic" {apples, beans} is a proper subset of {a,b,c} cuz I can contrive a relationship.

I have explained why what you are doing is wrong and gave some examples. And you cannot say what difference it would make if Cantor is wrong and I am right. You cannot say what use Cantor's methodology is and that makes it subjective.

Take a set theory course and things will be much clearer I'm sure.

Been there, don e that and if I did it again I would fight with the professor because, like you, he couldn't support the claim.

If one set contains all of the members of another set AND ALSO has members that other does not, then it is obvious that set has more members and therefor a different cardinality. And you will never be able to prove otherwise and I am good with that.
At 9:33 AM, Joe G said…

LoL! Richie the ignorant cheerleader chimes in with his usual substance-free pom-poms.
At 9:47 AM, Joe G said…

Please give an example of someone else using 'contrived' and 'derived' in the same set theory specific way you do.

That isn't a requirement, Jerad.

I was trying to give examples of why the concepts we are discussing are useful.

Well you FAILed, miserably, as usual.

{a,b} is the natural proper subset of {a,b,c}. {apples, beans} is a contrived proper subset of {a,b,c} cuz I removed all the letters that weren't matches to the original set {a,b,c}.

According to your "logic" what I did is OK.
At 3:02 PM, Unknown said…

{apples, beans} is not a subset of {a, b, c}. I've been talking about making one-to-nor correspondences which means being able to match up elements of different sets one for one. And you can't do that with those two sets either. They have different cardinality.

{a, b} is a subset of {a, b, c} but there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two sets. They have different cardinality, different sizes.

{2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } is a subset of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } but there is a one-to-one correspondence between the sets so they have the same cardinality, the same size, both sets are countably infinite.

If you were right then there'd be some profound changes in the basis of mathematics.

Cantor's logic is to just match up elements of two sets. If you can match every element of one set with a unique element of the other and vice versa then the sets have a one-to-one correspondence and they are the same size.

All the elements of a subset must be in the parent set. Sets of the same size may have no elements in common.

{1, 3, 5, 7 . . .} and {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } have no elements in common but still have a one-to-one correspondence and are the same size.

Your use of the terms contrived and derived are confusing, not clearly defined and you have not supported your use with any documentation which is why I keep asking you for some supporting data.
At 5:20 PM, Joe G said…

{apples, beans} is not a subset of {a, b, c}.

It is if you allow for contrived relationships. Do try to keep up.

I've been talking about making one-to-nor correspondences which means being able to match up elements of different sets one for one.

You are talking about contrived relationships and I am talking about contrived relationships.

{2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } is a subset of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } but there is a one-to-one correspondence between the sets so they have the same cardinality,

There is a contrived, ie false, one-to-one correspondence, yes.

the same size,

And like magic we can remove all of the members of {2,4,6,8,...} from {1,2,3,4,...} and still have an infinite set!

How can that be, Jerad?

If you were right then there'd be some profound changes in the basis of mathematics.

Bullshit. No one uses this concept for anything and it goes against Occam.

Cantor's logic is to just match up elements of two sets.

That's what I am doing! I am just using the same, natural, match we use to determine if one set is a proper subset of another. I do not have to contrive something in order to manufacture a match.

If you can match every element of one set with a unique element of the other and vice versa then the sets have a one-to-one correspondence and they are the same size.

It is all contrived, Jerad.

Your use of the terms contrived and derived are confusing

Only to a four year old. I have explained the use. The problem is all yours.

not clearly defined

All evidence to the contrary, of course.

and you have not supported your use with any documentation

Pure cowardly gibberish

which is why I keep asking you for some supporting data.

I have provided definitions and examples. I have painfully explained it all to you. You are just unable to actually think so we have a problem and it is you.

Good luck with that.
At 7:00 PM, Unknown said…

{apples! beans} is NOT a subset of {a, b, c} Ever.

There IS a 1-to-1 correspondence between the positive integers and the positive even integers. I can tell which elements are matched together, I can show no element is left out. It's just lining the sets up in order and matching them.

Seriously Joe, no one else uses contrived in set theory the way you do. And 1-to-1 correspondences are not generally about subsets.

Take {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and take out {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } you get {1, 3, 5, 7 . . . } Why do you think that's not an infinite set? (You implied above it wasn't). Aren't the evens an infinite set? Don't you think the sets of evens and odds are the same size? Is the set of the multiples of 5 an infinite set? It doesn't end. What about the perfect squares? Does that end?

Give me your definition of 'contrived' as you are using it. You seem to be saying anytime you're not matching up identical elements between sets the matching is contrived. But that means you can never compare the size of infinite sets that have no elements in common. In which case how do you know which is bigger?
At 8:07 PM, Joe G said…

{apples! beans} is NOT a subset of {a, b, c} Ever.

It is when I contrive a relationship as you do with infinite sets.

There IS a 1-to-1 correspondence between the positive integers and the positive even integers.

Not really. If there were then we should be able to remove all positive even integers from all positive integers and have nothing left.

I can tell which elements are matched together, I can show no element is left out. It's just lining the sets up in order and matching them.

The elements that match together are the elements that are the same. {1,2,3,4} = {2,3,4,1}, yet it wouldn't if we used your methodology.

Seriously Joe, no one else uses contrived in set theory the way you do.

Seriously, Jerad, that is meaningless drivel.

And 1-to-1 correspondences are not generally about subsets.

And yet that is exactly what we are discussing. 1-to-1 correspondence should be impossible with proper subsets (and their set)

Take {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } and take out {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } you get {1, 3, 5, 7 . . . } Why do you think that's not an infinite set? (You implied above it wasn't).

LoL! I said that how can we still have an infinite set left over if the two infinite sets were equal.

Give me your definition of 'contrived' as you are using it.

Again? contrive

You seem to be saying anytime you're not matching up identical elements between sets the matching is contrived. But that means you can never compare the size of infinite sets that have no elements in common. In which case how do you know which is bigger?

LoL! {1,3,5,7,...} and {2,4,6,8,..} fit your scenario yet are easily compared wrt size.
At 3:11 AM, Unknown said…

So, contrived means to think of a way or a plan. So, a contrived correspondence is one you thought up.? As opposed to the one where you match up identical elements from different sets, that's your derived correspondence? No one else uses the terms like that. No one would use derived in that sense since you did no deriving. You just made those up I fear, especially since you can't give me an example of anyone else using the terms in that way. So that's settled.

Derived or contrived (in your word) doesn't matter when you're trying to compare sizes of sets. I know, you're all hung up about only using derived correspondences which means you can only compare sets where one is a subset. But that means you can't compare the set of primes to the set of powers of three since they only have one element in common. But there is a one-to-one correspondence which tells you the sets are the same size. That's why the methods is powerful, it handles cases your approach can't handle. Which is why it's used.

{apples! beans} is NOT a subset of {1, 2, 3} because the elements of one set are not also elements of the second set. AND you cannot contrive or derive a one-to-one correspondence since the sets are of different sizes.

{1, 2, 3, 4 . . .} = Z+, the positive integers, a countably infinite set.

{2, 4, 6, 8 . . .} = E, the positive even integers, also a countably infinite set.

Both sets are the same 'size'. More better, they have the same cardinality.

Z+ take away E gives you O = {1, 3, 5, 7 . . .}. Now O is also clearly infinite, there's no end to it. And I can match up Z+ and O so that each element of Z+ gets matched with one and only one element of O. And each element of O gets matched up with one and only one element of Z+.

You will say that's 'contrived' and therefore somehow bad in a way you have not stated which is why I kept asking you for a set theory specific definition. You can't tell me why my correspondence is wrong (except that you don't like it).

Z+ and O match up, one-to-one so they must be the same size. QED

If all you're going to do is tell me I can't use a contrived correspondence, a claim you are making which is NOT supported by anyone else's work then you have to provide the evidence. No more calling names or shouting or asserting something you can't back up. You and you alone are saying over 100 years of mathematics is wrong, you have to make that case. All you've said so far is contrived correspondences are wrong because you can't see beyond comparing sets in a subset-style fashion. The real heart of the matter. Your method only works with certain sets and, even then, it gives the wrong answer. You can't see how O can be infinite. We'll gee, look. Does it end? Does it have a largest element? Must be infinite then.

Before you try and take down established work make sure you understand it and make sure all your stuff is correct and solid.
At 9:26 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad, I see that you are unable to think.

{1, 2, 3, 4 . . .} = Z+, the positive integers, a countably infinite set.

{2, 4, 6, 8 . . .} = E, the positive even integers, also a countably infinite set.

Both sets are the same 'size'. More better, they have the same cardinality.

Let's see, Z+ has ALL of the members of E PLUS has members E does not have. That proves that Z+ and E are not the same size!

Deal with that or you prove that you are a cowardly fuck who should not be listed to.

{apples! beans} is NOT a subset of {1, 2, 3} because the elements of one set are not also elements of the second set.

Then will be once I contrive them to be so.

AND you cannot contrive or derive a one-to-one correspondence since the sets are of different sizes.

That is how it is with all proper subsets. That is the very definition of a proper subset.

I thought you knew set theory? Obviously not.

You and you alone are saying over 100 years of mathematics is wrong

I know that I am not alone and no one can prove that it is right so fuck off.

you have to make that case.

I have and you choked.

Your method only works with certain sets and, even then, it gives the wrong answer.

Yes it only works in specific scenarios but it doesn't give the wrong answer. Your ignorance doesn't make it wrong, Jerad.

You can't see how O can be infinite.

Liar. I said it was infinite you fucking piece of shit.

So here we have Jerad refusing to take on my argument, forced to lie and forced to hide behind others.
At 3:14 PM, Unknown said…

Shall we continue our discussion from UD which I think gets at the heart of the matter. We can use other sets if you like though. I like mine though.

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

Set 2 : {2, 5, 8, 11 . . . }

'Marry' elements of set 1, n, to elements of set 2 by the n marries 3n - 1in set 2!!

You think set one is bigger than set 2 so there should be an element of set 1 that is not matched to an element in set 2. If you can find one you will have proved than set 1 is bigger than set 2.

Can you find such an element? This really is a chance for you to falsify my contention. Find an unmatched element.
At 3:31 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad, You are so fucking ignorant it is pathetic. If I am challenging the claim that your formula "marries" the two sets elements you cannot keep using that formula to refute my challenge.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Also I can use your formula to show it demonstrates the difference in sizes between the two sets. That must be making you very upset.
At 3:35 AM, Unknown said…

You're not upsetting me at all. I'm finding this very amusing..

My matching links 1 in set 1 with 2 in set 2. Take those two out.

Then 2 in set 1 gets matched with 5 in set 2. Takes those two out.

Continue with 3 and 8, then 4 and 11. So far no element has been unmatched.

Continue on . . . I have shown a way to match each element of set 1 with a unique element of set 2. No element is unmatched. You can't just say: you can't use that without quoting a set theory rule which says it's not allowed.

If you're right then there should be at least one unmatched element somewhere. If you want to disprove my scheme all you have to do is find an unmatched element.

If you can't find an unmatched element then the sets must be the same size.
At 9:13 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad, You must be upset as you refuse to deal with reality which demonstrates that I can remove each and every member of set 2 from set 1 and still have an infinite set left. So yes I can find an infinite number of unmatched elements in set 1.

My matching links 1 in set 1 with 2 in set 2.

So 1 - 2 = 0? Or are you just retarded?

So when we determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of the other do we use the matching you are using? If not then why not and why are YOU changing the natural matching?
At 9:14 AM, Joe G said…

Also I can use your formula to show it demonstrates the difference in sizes between the two sets.
At 6:34 PM, Unknown said…

Jerad, You must be upset as you refuse to deal with reality which demonstrates that I can remove each and every member of set 2 from set 1 and still have an infinite set left. So yes I can find an infinite number of unmatched elements in set 1.

Yes Joe, I see your example. But my example contradicts that so, since you think I am wrong find the problem in my argument. Find the unmatched element in my matching formula.

Don't shout, don't swear, just find an example that proves that I am wrong.

So when we determine whether or not one set is a proper subset of the other do we use the matching you are using? If not then why not and why are YOU changing the natural matching?

You can use any matching you like. Why is there a restriction? And if two matchings disagree then one must be wrong. Can you find the mistake in mine?

Also I can use your formula to show it demonstrates the difference in sizes between the two sets.

Okay, show me. And then show me how such a formula explains the difference in sizes between these two sets with the given formula:

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

{1, 8, 27, 64 . . . }

n in the first set is matched with n^3 in the second set.
At 7:17 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad, Again, if you were right I shouldn't be able to do what I did.

And then show me how such a formula explains the difference in sizes between these two sets with the given formula:

The same way 2n explains the difference in all positive integers and all positive even integers.
At 2:38 AM, Unknown said…

Jerad, Again, if you were right I shouldn't be able to do what I did.

Your mapping isn't 1-t0-1. Mine is. Go figure.

The same way 2n explains the difference in all positive integers and all positive even integers.

How does it 'explain' it then? That's just a formula to make up the elements.

What about my last example with the formula n matches with n^3. You haven't told me what that tells you about the set sizes.

And you haven't found an unmatched element in my set matching. The only way for all the elements to be matched up is for the sets to be the same size. Unless you can find a counter-example. I haven't seen one yet.

Welcome to the infinite world.
At 9:03 AM, Joe G said…

Your mapping isn't 1-t0-1. Mine is. Go figure.

Yours is imaginary whereas mine reflects reality. Go figure.

The only way for all the elements to be matched up is for the sets to be the same size.

Or if you just make it up, as you do.

And you haven't found an unmatched element in my set matching.

You are an ignorant ass. Your scheme is what is being debated and only a fool would use what is being debated as supporting evidence for it. And here you are.

Nice job
At 9:41 AM, Unknown said…

Yours is imaginary whereas mine reflects reality. Go figure.

You're just stuck on your way being the only way. And you can't even consider losing.

Yours is NOT 1-to-1 because some elements of one set are unmatched. Which makes it look like one set is bigger.

But, there is a 1-to-1 matching (more than one actually) which I have demonstrated. And if there is one then the sets are the same size. There's nothing to debate. I've demonstrated what I said was true.

Or if you just make it up, as you do.

You still haven't found an unmatched elements under my matching. So you're trying to cast aspersions on my matching 'cause I've demonstrated what I said was true.

You are an ignorant ass.

But I am right.

Your scheme is what is being debated and only a fool would use what is being debated as supporting evidence for it. And here you are.

You mean like ID proponents claim design when it's still being debated?

What's to debate? I found a way to match the sets one-for-one. There's nothing saying it's illegal or wrong that you've been able to find. You just don't like it. And you refuse to accept that I demonstrated what I said was true.

Nice job

Thanks. It was easy-peasy. This is just the very, very, very beginnings of real set theory. But you know that because you took a course in it. But you can't seem to find any kind of documentation that supports your contention that my mapping is wrong nor can you defend your use of the terms contrived and derived in a set theoretical context.

Looks like I win eh?
At 9:55 AM, Joe G said…

You mean like ID proponents claim design when it's still being debated?

LoL! We can support our case whereas our opponents cannot support theirs.

Yours is NOT 1-to-1 because some elements of one set are unmatched.

I know. There is only a 1-to-1 in imaginationland.

Look, Jerad, you cannot show any practical application for your scheme. It is meaningless.

And I cannot find any documentation tat Cantor was right. All I can find are people using his methodology just cuz he said to.

I have shown, using basic set theory meth, that one set has more elements than the other. Just cuz Jerad doesn't like math he ignores it and prattles on like a little baby.
At 4:14 PM, Unknown said…

I know. There is only a 1-to-1 in imaginationland.

??? I gave you one.

Joe if you can't defend your claims and definitions and procedures with references and examples from mathematical work then don't you think it's time to give it up?

Look, Jerad, you cannot show any practical application for your scheme. It is meaningless.

I never said it had any use outside of mathematics. How is its usefulness a criteria for it being true or not?

And I cannot find any documentation tat Cantor was right. All I can find are people using his methodology just cuz he said to.

Maybe you should read one of many, many books on set theory. Or try and understand that proof I linked to. IF you really are trying to find out what's true. If you're just trying to ignore everything except that which you agree with then . . .

If you can't find anything building on Cantor's work then you just haven't looked.

I have shown, using basic set theory meth, that one set has more elements than the other. Just cuz Jerad doesn't like math he ignores it and prattles on like a little baby.

I have told you: mathematics of infinite sets works differently. I haven't ignored what you said. You don't have to believe me, go look it up! I gave you a theorem which says that an infinite set HAS TO BE equivalent to one of its proper subsets. I've asked you to defend your use of contrived, derived and natural correspondences and you haven't done that. You know you haven't done that but you're not man enough to admit that you can't or won't.

I'm sure you're enjoying the idea that I'm getting all hot and bothered with your sparkling intelligence but really what I'm doing is just thinking that not only do you NOT know what you're talking about but you can't defend it and you can't be bothered to find out what is true.

And you know it's not just me that says you're wrong. KF agrees with me as do several other commentors at UD (including one called Cantor amusingly enough).

I do know what it's like to say something that's wrong and defend it until it's too embarrassing to admit you're wrong. You could extricate yourself gracefully by saying you had a look and you figured out that you'd somewhat misinterpreted something you read or that you remembered something incorrectly. I'm not expecting you to do that but I'm just saying you don't have to defend a losing position after the battle has moved on. You don't have to be like that Japanese soldier who kept fighting WWII in the Phillippines until the mid 70s. You're not going to get a medal or a badge for standing up for incorrect mathematics. Even KF disagrees with you and you can bet your bottom dollar Dr Dembski does too.
At 5:01 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad, I have defended my claims. Just because you are too ignorant or too stupid to grasp what I post just proves my point.

I gave you a theorem which says that an infinite set HAS TO BE equivalent to one of its proper subsets.

And yet my demonstration proves tat to be wrong.

And I don't give a fuck who disagrees with me. Until they address my argument they too can eat it.

You cannot prove that I am wrong by showing practical applications tat would fail if what I said was true. You have nothing but subjective idiocracy and you think that means something.

So all I can say is go fuck yourself as obviously you are too much of a coward to deal with reality.

Two sets cannot have the same number of elements if I can take all of the matching elements out of one set by using set math and still have an infinite set left.

Period, end of story.
At 5:40 PM, Joe G said…

I have told you: mathematics of infinite sets works differently.

I know and I am pretty sure that is part of the claim we are debating. So just repeating it proves that you are senile.

{1,2,3} a finite set that has the first three positive integers. {1,2,3,...} is an infinite set of positive integers, the pattern which was directly extrapolated from the established finite pattern. There isn't any difference in mathematics there.

OK how about set subtraction? That seems to be work the same. Is subtraction still part of mathematics?

No, Jerad, the only difference seems to be is that with infinite sets Cantor manufactured a mathy-sounding solution and most people seem to have bought it. Unfortunately it doesn't do them a world of good but they think it makes them smarter than others cuz they know the troof 'bout infinity stuff by golly.
At 5:41 PM, Unknown said…

Jerad, I have defended my claims. Just because you are too ignorant or too stupid to grasp what I post just proves my point.

I see no references from you regarding your use of terms. I see no supporting arguments from other sources.

I gave you a theorem which says that an infinite set HAS TO BE equivalent to one of its proper subsets.

And yet my demonstration proves tat to be wrong.

Then find a fault in the theorem proofs. Go on, show me where the proofs are wrong.

And I don't give a fuck who disagrees with me. Until they address my argument they too can eat it.

We are addressing your argument and you're just pretending we don't. You don't give support from other sources for your arguments or your use of terms. If the theorem I linked to is wrong then find a mistake in one of the proofs.

You cannot prove that I am wrong by showing practical applications tat would fail if what I said was true. You have nothing but subjective idiocracy and you think that means something.

I said there weren't a lot of practical applications. It's like you're not even reading what I've written.

So all I can say is go fuck yourself as obviously you are too much of a coward to deal with reality.

Well, if you can't back your arguments up with supporting references or examples worked out by other people then you're just fucking yourself.

Two sets cannot have the same number of elements if I can take all of the matching elements out of one set by using set math and still have an infinite set left.

Set 1: (1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } is infinite.

Set 2: {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } is infinite.

Set 3: {1, 3, 5, 7 . . . } is infinite.

Set 1 take away Set 2 is Set 3. You're saying Set 1 is a bigger infinity then Set 2 or Set 3.

So you'd say that {1, 3, 6, 9, 12 . . . } has 1/3 the infinity of the natural numbers?

And what fraction of the natural numbers infinity would {1, 3, 9, 27, 81 . . . } have?

So, how small can infinity be in your system?

{1, 17, 34, 51 . . . } would presumably have an infinity 1/17 the size of the natural numbers then?

Is there a smallest infinity then?

What if I take the natural numbers and take out all the composite numbers? So I'm left with the primes. Is that the smallest infinity?

Oh wait, what about this set:

{1, 10, 100, 1000, 10000, 100000 . . . }

Is the cardinality of that set the smallest infinity? Can't be because I can then make

{1, 100, 10000, 1000000 . . . .}

In your way of thinking no matter what smallest infinity you came up with I could just subtract out every other term and come up with a smaller infinity.

So your infinities get smaller and smaller and smaller but keep staying infinity. Forever. I guess. 'Cause I can keep taking out elements and still have an infinite set.

Smaller and smaller and smaller and never becoming non-infinity? Or are you saying that happens at some point? In your way of thinking can I take an infinity and divide by something or cut it down by some scaling factor and make it finite? Are you sure you're happy with this logic?
At 5:51 PM, Unknown said…

I know and I am pretty sure that is part of the claim we are debating. So just repeating it proves that you are senile.

And yet you keep insisting/repeating your finite model is correct. And you have not been able to support your argument with outside references or examples. So who's senile by your standards?

{1,2,3} a finite set that has the first three positive integers. {1,2,3,...} is an infinite set of positive integers, the pattern which was directly extrapolated from the established finite pattern. There isn't any difference in mathematics there.

That's where you are wrong. Things change when you move to infinite sets. Why do you not think that maybe the reason Cantor came up with the notions he did was because he'd already gone down this path? You give no credit at all to those who have gone before.

OK how about set subtraction? That seems to be work the same. Is subtraction still part of mathematics?

Yes but with infinite sets you can subtract out an infinite subset and still have an infinite set left. And they can all be the same size.

No, Jerad, the only difference seems to be is that with infinite sets Cantor manufactured a mathy-sounding solution and most people seem to have bought it. Unfortunately it doesn't do them a world of good but they think it makes them smarter than others cuz they know the troof 'bout infinity stuff by golly.

Go read a book on set theory. You are not going to believe me no matter what I say. Go buy or borrow an introduction to set theory, work through the first few chapters at least just you so know what the points of contention really are and then make your argument.

I like to think I'm pretty smart too but your assumption that you know more than over a century of extremely bright people is arrogance of a high level.

(I know you won't actually go get a book on set theory but I feel I must at least make the suggestion. You think you know everything already so why would you have to go and learn something new?)
At 8:56 PM, Joe G said…

And yet you keep insisting/repeating your finite model is correct.

I don't have a finite model.

But yes, if you are just going to keep repeating your claim I will just keep repeating my refutation of it. Then you will just repeat your claim and I will do likewise as I don't need another refutation when one does just fine.

And you have not been able to support your argument with outside references or examples.

I gave you examples and unique ideas are hard to find references for. Obviously you are too stupid to even realize that.

That's where you are wrong. Things change when you move to infinite sets.

What "things"? I named two that remain the same.

Why do you not think that maybe the reason Cantor came up with the notions he did was because he'd already gone down this path?

Cantor isn't a god. He doesn't get the final say especially when his concept doesn't have any practical application in which in can be proven.

You give no credit at all to those who have gone before.

And you just blurt out ignorant shit as if it means something.

Go read a book on set theory. You are not going to believe me no matter what I say.

You are one thick bastard, Jerad. I know that you agree with the orthodoxy. I know what they say. Do you think I need to be re-indoctrinated and that will turn their bullshit into gold?

I said there weren't a lot of practical applications.

There aren't any.

Set 1: (1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } is infinite.

Set 2: {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } is infinite.

Set 3: {1, 3, 5, 7 . . . } is infinite.

Set 1 take away Set 2 is Set 3. You're saying Set 1 is a bigger infinity then Set 2 or Set 3.

No asshole, I am saying Set 1 has twice the cardinality of both Sets 2 & 3. Infinity isn't a number.

So you'd say that {1, 3, 6, 9, 12 . . . } has 1/3 the infinity of the natural numbers?

I would say you are 3 times the asshole that I once thought.
At 9:00 PM, Joe G said…

Smallest infinity? Really?

What post did I ever say anything about the size of infinity? Cardinality refers to the number of elements in a set.
At 2:39 AM, Unknown said…

I don't have a finite model.

It seems that way based on what you say.

I gave you examples and unique ideas are hard to find references for. Obviously you are too stupid to even realize that.

Your arguments and examples and ideas run counter to over 100 years of established, consistent and used mathematics. I ask you to support your notions with outside references so I can see that you're not just making things up.

That's where you are wrong. Things change when you move to infinite sets.

What "things"? I named two that remain the same.

The things you WANT to stay the same don't.

Cantor isn't a god. He doesn't get the final say especially when his concept doesn't have any practical application in which in can be proven.

Cantor's work has great use and application within mathematics. Go look it up.

And you just blurt out ignorant shit as if it means something.

Did you see those quotes I gave from Dr Dembski's 2005 paper? He clearly believes and uses countably infinite sets.

You are one thick bastard, Jerad. I know that you agree with the orthodoxy. I know what they say. Do you think I need to be re-indoctrinated and that will turn their bullshit into gold?

Since you've made up your mind and refuse to consider that you might be wrong there's no point in continuing the discussion is there?

No asshole, I am saying Set 1 has twice the cardinality of both Sets 2 & 3. Infinity isn't a number.

Which means that smaller infinite sets have less cardinality. Which means that you can keep getting smaller and smaller infinite sets with smaller and smaller cardinality. What is the lower bound of these cardinalities?

I would say you are 3 times the asshole that I once thought.

I am taking off directly from what you say you believe to be true!! You think smaller infinite sets have smaller cardinalities and I'm asking you if there is a lower limit to the cardinalities or can they get smaller and smaller without a lower bound.

What post did I ever say anything about the size of infinity? Cardinality refers to the number of elements in a set.

And some sets have an infinite number of elements. That's what were talking about!!!

I really don't understand you at all. You think the natural numbers has a greater cardinality than the set of even numbers. Which means the multiples of 4 would have to have an even smaller cardinality. Which means the multiples of 8 (still an infinite set) would have an even smaller cardinality. Etc. According to you you can keep getting smaller and smaller cardinalities. That is exactly what you are implying.

So, is there a lower bound to your ever decreasing cardinalities or do they go down without a lower bound?
At 7:32 AM, Joe G said…

Your arguments and examples and ideas run counter to over 100 years of established, consistent and used mathematics.

Bullshit. There wasn't anything established- obviously you don't understand what that word means- and this concept is NOT used for anything. And it isn't even consistent!

0 for 3 in one sentence!

I ask you to support your notions with outside references so I can see that you're not just making things up.

Hey asshole, who did Cantor reference for support of his concept?

The things you WANT to stay the same don't

For no logical reason. Go figure.

Cantor's work has great use and application within mathematics

Not this aspect of it you fucking equivocating coward.

Did you see those quotes I gave from Dr Dembski's 2005 paper? He clearly believes and uses countably infinite sets

You are an asshole. Does he use the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? Or are you just a fucknut?

Since you've made up your mind and refuse to consider that you might be wrong there's no point in continuing the discussion is there?

Nice projection
At 7:41 AM, Joe G said…

Which means that smaller infinite sets have less cardinality.

Infinity is still infinity. And it would be that those infinite sets have fewer elements than other infinite sets.

What is the lower bound of these cardinalities?

Whatever it is. Make a count once every trillion years for infinity.

You think smaller infinite sets have smaller cardinalities

LoL! No some infinite sets have a lower cardinality than others.

And some sets have an infinite number of elements

Only some?

You think the natural numbers has a greater cardinality than the set of even numbers.

I have proven it does using standard set mathematics.

Which means the multiples of 4 would have to have an even smaller cardinality. Which means the multiples of 8 (still an infinite set) would have an even smaller cardinality. Etc. According to you you can keep getting smaller and smaller cardinalities. That is exactly what you are implying.

LoL! I am not implying it, Jerad. That is my claim and I have proven it using standard set mathematics.

So, is there a lower bound to your ever decreasing cardinalities or do they go down without a lower bound?

You keep proving that your alleged math background is shit. You really cannot think for yourself, can you?
At 12:04 PM, Unknown said…

Alright lets just stick to one central topic.

You claim that the natural numbers have a larger cardinality than the even numbers which have a larger cardinality than the multiples of 4 which have a larger cardinality than the multiples of 8, etc.

Each of those sets is infinite but they have decreasing cardinality.

All okay so far?

So my question is: since I can continue to make infinite sets in the pattern I've started above is there a lower limit to the ever decreasing cardinalities? That is, do they keep getting smaller and smaller or do they hit a lower bound below which they do not fall.

This is part of your version of set theory and I think it's a fair question to ask. It's not my view so I can't answer the question.
At 10:41 AM, Joe G said…

So my question is: since I can continue to make infinite sets in the pattern I've started above is there a lower limit to the ever decreasing cardinalities? That is, do they keep getting smaller and smaller or do they hit a lower bound below which they do not fall.

Does it matter? If yes please explain why it matters.

It would also be helpful to explain why the mathematics of infinite sets is the same except when it is arbitrarily different.
At 11:21 AM, Unknown said…

Does it matter? If yes please explain why it matters.

Of course it matters!! It helps tell me how arithmetic of infinite sets works with your scheme.

It's helps when checking to see how your scheme handles certain cases.

It helps to see if it handles as many cases as the alternative scheme.

It matters quite a lot. I would have thought that was obvious.

It would also be helpful to explain why the mathematics of infinite sets is the same except when it is arbitrarily different.

I don't think it's arbitrary. Work out the details or your system and we'll see if you can avoid some of the changes in the rules as you see it.
At 12:39 PM, Joe G said…

Of course it matters!! It helps tell me how arithmetic of infinite sets works with your scheme.

It does? Please explain.

t's helps when checking to see how your scheme handles certain cases.

What certain cases? Please be specific

It helps to see if it handles as many cases as the alternative scheme.

What does that mean?

It would also be helpful to explain why the mathematics of infinite sets is the same except when it is arbitrarily different.

I don't think it's arbitrary

Of course it is arbitrary

Work out the details or your system and we'll see if you can avoid some of the changes in the rules as you see it.

Please hold your breath while I do so...
At 1:35 PM, Unknown said…

It does? Please explain.

If you're right and the sizes of infinity are as I laid out above (and you have not agreed with) then your scheme differs from Cantor's in significant ways. Cantor would say that the infinity of the set of natural numbers is the same as the infinity of the even numbers and when you add them together you get the same infinity back again. Your approach would not give that result. Your approach, the way I see it, would give 1.5 the infinity of the natural numbers.

One thing you'd have to do with your scheme is to come up with a way of indicated what size infinity you were talking about because it would matter when using them since they are different sizes.

What certain cases? Please be specific

Well, I'd like to know IF there is a smallest infinity or not. I'd like to know if there is a strict hierarchy of the cardinals, i.e. can they be arranged in an unambiguous ascending order. I'd like to know if I add the set of primes to the multiples of 8 what size the resulting set is.

What does that mean?

It means I want to compare your results with those arrived at when using the Cantor method.

Please hold your breath while I do so...

Does that mean you are really going to do so? Or are you just telling me to piss off because you can't be bothered?

Look, if you really think you've got a valid approach then you have to do some work to justify it's usefulness. You complained that Cantor's approach had no practical applications. Well, if yours does than you should make sure it's all elucidated.
At 2:14 PM, Joe G said…

Countably infinite would be a class of infinity. Adding two countably infinite sets give you a countably infinite set. Set addition is the same as always.

Look, if you really think you've got a valid approach then you have to do some work to justify it's usefulness

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

We have already established that it is useless to say that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. That is the concept isn't used for anything.

What the fuck is wrong with you? How the fuck can you post what you did and still say that you want a serious dialog?
At 6:20 PM, Unknown said…

Countably infinite would be a class of infinity. Adding two countably infinite sets give you a countably infinite set. Set addition is the same as always.

So . . . that sounds like Cantor.

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

We have already established that it is useless to say that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. That is the concept isn't used for anything.

What the fuck is wrong with you? How the fuck can you post what you did and still say that you want a serious dialog?

Well, if you don't really care and you're just saying things forget it.

I thought you had something you thought was valid and alternate to Cantor. I didn't realise you were just winding me up with BS.
At 6:52 PM, Joe G said…

So . . . that sounds like Cantor.

So . . . that sounds like you really have no clue what you were arguing against.

Well, if you don't really care and you're just saying things forget it.

Nice projection. You can't even understand what I have been saying, so forget it.

I thought you had something you thought was valid and alternate to Cantor

I thought you had something you thought was valid and addresses what I have been saying. Now you have proven all you have is BS.

What Cantor called different sizes of infinities are actually different classes of infinity which contain different relative cardinalities.

Infinity is the superset with {countable} and {uncountable} as the first level subsets- for example.

And just as frequency/ density is a criteria used to determine which first level subset an element belongs in, it is also a criteria used to determine relative cardinality.

Relative cardinality because there can't be a number so the cardinalities are in relation to some standard. For example the set of all integers would have a cardinality of N. The set of all positive integers would be (N-1)/2- all non-negative integers would be N/2
At 7:01 PM, Joe G said…

Countably infinite would be a class of infinity. Adding two countably infinite sets give you a countably infinite set. Set addition is the same as always.

So . . . that sounds like Cantor.

But . . . you said the mathematics of infinite sets was "different" and yet it sounds like they are the same.

The ONLY part we differ, Cantor and I, is saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. He says they do and I say they do not. He contrived a system to support his claim and I used the agreed upon set mathematics to refute him. So now someone needs to show a practical application of his claim to overturn that refutation.

That ain't going to happen so now I am accused of not knowing the whole troof 'bout infinities.
At 2:02 AM, Unknown said…

What Cantor called different sizes of infinities are actually different classes of infinity which contain different relative cardinalities.

Infinity is the superset with {countable} and {uncountable} as the first level subsets- for example.

And just as frequency/ density is a criteria used to determine which first level subset an element belongs in, it is also a criteria used to determine relative cardinality.

Relative cardinality because there can't be a number so the cardinalities are in relation to some standard. For example the set of all integers would have a cardinality of N. The set of all positive integers would be (N-1)/2- all non-negative integers would be N/2

What is the lower bound of your countable subset?

N/2 is bigger than N/3 > N/4 > N/5 etc The relative cardinalities get smaller and smaller but there must be a limit to how far they can drop. What is it?
At 8:12 AM, Joe G said…

What is the lower bound of your countable subset?

N/2 is bigger than N/3 > N/4 > N/5 etc The relative cardinalities get smaller and smaller but there must be a limit to how far they can drop. What is it?

To me that is just gibberish as it would be infinite. That is the drop would be infinite as the divisor can just keep getting larger.

I thought you said that you understood math and infinity?
At 10:29 AM, Unknown said…

To me that is just gibberish as it would be infinite. That is the drop would be infinite as the divisor can just keep getting larger.

I thought you said that you understood math and infinity?

I was going to try and explain what I meant and why it's important but since I don't know what I'm talking about according to you there's no point.
At 1:06 PM, Joe G said…

Whatever Jerad. I am sure whatever you sed wouldn't have any empirical support.
At 1:45 PM, Unknown said…

Whatever Jerad. I am sure whatever you sed wouldn't have any empirical support.

And the empirical support for your approach is . . . .
At 2:33 PM, Joe G said…

Standard set mathematics, duh.
At 7:51 PM, Unknown said…

Standard set mathematics, duh.

Well, in standard finite set mathematics if the cardinality of a set was N and you took out half the elements the new cardinality would be N/2. And then if you take out half of the remaining, 1/4 of the original, what you have left is N/4. And so on. But, there is a lower limit to that process. If you take a finite number and divide by 2, then 4, then 8, then 16, etc you get closer and closer to 0.

So, if your scheme follows standard set arithmetic . . .

If the cardinality of {1 ,2, 3, 4 . . . } is N.

And the cardinality of (2, 4, 6, 8 . . . } is N/2

And the cardinality of (4, 8, 16, 32 . . . } is N/4

And so on.

Do these decreasing cardinalities get closer and closer to 0?
At 8:20 PM, Joe G said…

Do these decreasing cardinalities get closer and closer to 0?

Both schemes get you further and further away from N.
At 8:23 PM, Joe G said…

Well, in standard finite set mathematics if the cardinality of a set was N and you took out half the elements the new cardinality would be N/2. And then if you take out half of the remaining, 1/4 of the original, what you have left is N/4. And so on. But, there is a lower limit to that process. If you take a finite number and divide by 2, then 4, then 8, then 16, etc you get closer and closer to 0.

Could you please specify this alleged lower limit to that process?
At 3:29 AM, Unknown said…

Could you please specify this alleged lower limit to that process?

It's your scheme. I'm asking you if there is a lower limit and if there is what it is.

I'm suggesting there should be one but it's your scheme.
At 10:14 AM, Joe G said…

LoL! Jerad makes a claim, refuses to support it and then tries to turn the onus back to me.

Typical coward.
At 12:17 PM, Unknown said…

LoL! Jerad makes a claim, refuses to support it and then tries to turn the onus back to me.

Typical coward.

I just asked you a question about your method of handling infinite cardinal numbers: in your subset of countable infinite cardinal is there a lower limit to the cardinals?

I said I would think their would be but since it's your scheme you should be the one to say.

If you don't want to answer it then just forget it.
At 1:00 PM, Joe G said…

I just asked you a question about your method of handling infinite cardinal numbers: in your subset of countable infinite cardinal is there a lower limit to the cardinals?

Is there a lower limit to dividing by 2?

I said I would think their would be but since it's your scheme you should be the one to say.

What is the lower limit to dividing by 2?

And I as have stated, you just keep getting further and further away from N. That is what my scheme says also.

There isn't a lower limit to dividing by two so why should there be a lower limit in my scheme?

Again, you are supposed to be the math major...
At 1:12 PM, Unknown said…

And I as have stated, you just keep getting further and further away from N. That is what my scheme says also.

There isn't a lower limit to dividing by two so why should there be a lower limit in my scheme?

Again, you are supposed to be the math major...

I'm not talking about JUST dividing by 2. I'm talking the sequence : N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16, etc. Does that sequence of decreasing cardinal numbers have a lower limit?

If you take a regular, finite number, like 100, and you look at 100/2, 100/4, 100/8, 100/16, etc the results get smaller and smaller but they never drop below zero which is a lower limit.

So, again, does the sequence N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . have a lower limit using your approach to infinite cardinal numbers. I know what Cantor's approach gives but I want to know what your approach gives since it's different.
At 4:16 PM, Joe G said…

So, again, does the sequence N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . have a lower limit using your approach to infinite cardinal numbers.

The lower limit will always be greater than the largest finite number.
At 5:10 PM, Unknown said…

The lower limit will always be greater than the largest finite number.

Which makes sense. It has to be infinite. Give it a name so we can refer to it without bringing up the whole discussion again.
At 11:19 AM, Unknown said…

Well, you seemingly have given up on this thread which is a pity.

Let's call the lower bound of the sequence: N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . LB? For lower bound? Easy to remember.

LB must also be an infinite number, as you said.

As the sequence N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . progresses it gets closer and closer to LB but always stays above or bigger or greater than LB. I think that's clear.

Okay so as the sequence continues to get closer to LB the gap shrinks. Now the sequence goes on forever and as it keeps getting closer and closer to LB is it okay to say that, effectively, LB is the smallest countably infinite cardinality?

This is the system you devised so I'm just asking how it behaves.
At 12:29 PM, Joe G said…

No, Jerad, I have given up on trying to get through to you.
At 3:03 PM, Unknown said…

No, Jerad, I have given up on trying to get through to you.

Well if you can't be bothered to discuss the system you came up with that you claim is superior to Cantor's then just forget the whole thing. I was just asking questions but you don't give a shit.
At 3:12 PM, Joe G said…

Well if you can't be bothered to discuss the system you came up with that you claim is superior to Cantor's then just forget the whole thing.

You are a fucking idiot. You have admitted that the part of Cantor's scheme I am debating isn't used for anything. I have also supported my claim with respect to my scheme and Cantor's.

And no, I don't give a shit about your questions because as I have said it is obvious this concept doesn't have any practical application. However if someone can convince me otherwise I will see what my scheme has to offer. Until then there are real problems to solve.
At 4:28 PM, Unknown said…

You are a fucking idiot. You have admitted that the part of Cantor's scheme I am debating isn't used for anything. I have also supported my claim with respect to my scheme and Cantor's.

No, I haven't. I have said it's part of the fundamental building blocks of Analysis upon which much of modern physics rests. You haven't supported you claim because you can't be bothered to answer questions about how your approach works. Which is obvious to everyone but you.

And no, I don't give a shit about your questions because as I have said it is obvious this concept doesn't have any practical application. However if someone can convince me otherwise I will see what my scheme has to offer. Until then there are real problems to solve.

Not caring about questions sounds suspiciously like you can't answer them.

Anyway, forgive the rest of the world for taking Cantor onboard and continuing on with methods that deliver the goods. Like your smart phone and GPS which is based on relativity which requires Taylor Series which depend on an understanding of infinity. Or Fisherian hypothesis testing which depends on being able to find the area under an infinite curve.
At 5:34 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad- OK please tell us of the usefulness of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.

You have been called out, again. Please go ahead and choke, again.
At 7:34 PM, Unknown said…

Jerad- OK please tell us of the usefulness of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.

You have been called out, again. Please go ahead and choke, again.

Gee, I guess I'll have to give the same answer I've already given many times:

IT'S FOUNDATIONAL TO ALL OF ANALYSIS.

And that's analysis in the mathematical sense, not int he generally accepted sense. You go look it up if you don't get it. You can't keep claiming victory when you can't even answer questions about your own approach to cardinal numbers.

Choking is not answering. I have answered, many times. You, on the other hand, have failed to answer some questions I've asked you about your own approach to handling cardinal numbers.

Time for you to deal with your own questions. Or shut up.
At 7:58 PM, Joe G said…

IT'S FOUNDATIONAL TO ALL OF ANALYSIS.

LIAR- the concept is totally useless.
At 7:58 PM, Joe G said…

IT'S FOUNDATIONAL TO ALL OF ANALYSIS.

LIAR- the concept is totally useless.
At 2:24 AM, Unknown said…

LIAR- the concept is totally useless.

You asked me to tell its use. I did. You say I'm lying.

Just forget the whole thing.

But don't forget that you couldn't defend you own method. You ran away when the going got tough.
At 8:49 AM, Joe G said…

You asked me to tell its use. I did. You say I'm lying.

You are lying. That is all you do. It is very telling that you cannot link to someone actually using the concept I am debating.

But don't forget that you couldn't defend you own method.

I have defended my own method. You are just an ignorant asshole.

You ran away when the going got tough.

I didn't go anywhere you ignorant asshole. I am just finished with you because it is obvious you are on an agenda to obfuscate and lie.
At 8:57 AM, Unknown said…

You are lying. That is all you do. It is very telling that you cannot link to someone actually using the concept I am debating.

Well forgive me for failing to link to now old mathematics which you say you took!! And forgive yourself for being too lazy to go look. Like you really care.

I have defended my own method. You are just an ignorant asshole.

Answer the question: in your approach is the lower bound of the sequence N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . the smallest countably infinite cardinal number? Yes or no.

I didn't go anywhere you ignorant asshole. I am just finished with you because it is obvious you are on an agenda to obfuscate and lie.

You stopped answering questions and got all belligerent and pissy and rude . . . but actually, that's your normal mode of behaviour when you can't answer a question.

Did you read that UD post by Denyse where she calls you a troll?
At 9:00 AM, Joe G said…

LoL! Jerad cannot support his claims and he is also ignorant of word phrases-

Jerad des the average Joe refer to people with the name Joe?
At 9:11 AM, Unknown said…

LoL! Jerad cannot support his claims and he is also ignorant of word phrases-

Jerad des the average Joe refer to people with the name Joe?

Not in this case: "But we think Joe + Joe’s fans would be happier at another site" That's a singular use of Joe not a plural. Later she says she can 'borf the Joes' (whatever that means, sounds a bit kinky) and that is plural.

Even if she meant it as a general "Joe Blow" kind of reference she still seems to be referring to you and Mapou.

I guess she doesn't love you anymore!!
At 9:19 AM, Joe G said…

I would say she is referring to the anti-ID assholes who only fuck up discussions and have nothing top offer
At 4:39 PM, Unknown said…

You still haven't answered the question:

In your approach to cardinal numbers, N being the cardinal associated with the integers if, as you claim,

N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . .

is a decreasing sequence of infinite cardinals with a lower bound LB then is LB the smallest infinite cardinal number?

Yes or no?

You're making a claim, you have to defend it or retreat. Not answering is retreating.
At 4:39 PM, Unknown said…

You still haven't answered the question:

In your approach to cardinal numbers, N being the cardinal associated with the integers if, as you claim,

N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . .

is a decreasing sequence of infinite cardinals with a lower bound LB then is LB the smallest infinite cardinal number?

Yes or no?

You're making a claim, you have to defend it or retreat. Not answering is retreating.
At 9:50 AM, Joe G said…

What would this LB be, Jerad? How close to 0 can multiplying by 1/2 get you?

But anyway, Jerad, you are a fucking liar who couldn't support your own claims if your life depended on it. All you do is retreat.

Still cannot link to the theory of evolution, eh, Jerad?
At 9:56 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad- OK please tell us of the usefulness of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.

You have been called out, again. Please go ahead and choke, again.

And your word means nothing. You have to actually provide a valid reference.
At 11:11 AM, Unknown said…

What would this LB be, Jerad? How close to 0 can multiplying by 1/2 get you?

Do you think the LB is 0? The lower bound of N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . .?

But anyway, Jerad, you are a fucking liar who couldn't support your own claims if your life depended on it. All you do is retreat.

We're talking about your alternative to Cantor, please try and stay on topic.

Still cannot link to the theory of evolution, eh, Jerad?

We're talking about your alternative to Cantor, please try and stay on topic.

Jerad- OK please tell us of the usefulness of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.

I gave you an answer. You don't know the mathematics that has been erected above Cantor's foundation. And then you call me liar for saying it exists. But you won't go look for yourself.

You have been called out, again. Please go ahead and choke, again.

Anyway, we're talking about your alternative to Cantor, please try and stay on topic.

And your word means nothing. You have to actually provide a valid reference.

Go read some Wikipedia entries. They're not hard to find. Unless you're trying to avoid doing some work or finding our you're wrong.

Again, does the sequence N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . where N is the cardinality of the integers have a lower bound? If yes then what is the lower bound.

Easy peasy for someone with a tested IQ of 150 or so I should think. But you don't answer . . .
At 11:15 AM, Joe G said…

Jerad, You gave us nothing. Obviously you are just a bluffing asswipe.

Again, does the sequence N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . where N is the cardinality of the integers have a lower bound?

YOU, being a mathematician, should be able to answer that for yourself, Jerad.

How close to 0 can multiplying by 1/2 get you?

Answer the question, Jerad. Stop retreating.
At 11:40 AM, Unknown said…

YOU, being a mathematician, should be able to answer that for yourself, Jerad.

I can give Cantor's answer which is that all those cardinal numbers are the same size. But you disagree with Cantor so what's your answer?

Answer the question, Jerad. Stop retreating.

How can it being retreating when I'm not answering a question about your approach?

Again, I know what Cantor would say but you disagree with that. SO what do you say?

I don't understand why this is so hard for you. If you want me to answer then we're back to Cantor.
At 11:48 AM, Joe G said…

I can give Cantor's answer which is that all those cardinal numbers are the same size. But you disagree with Cantor so what's your answer?

That they are NOT the same size for the reason provided. The reason you continue to avoid.

How close to 0 can multiplying by 1/2 get you?

Answer the question, Jerad. Stop retreating.

What would Cantor say, seeing that you are too much of a coward to answer for yourself.
At 11:52 AM, Joe G said…

Let set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
Let set B = {2,4,6,8,10,12...}
Let set C = {1,3,5,7,9,11...}

A-B=C and A-C=B. Then A>B and A>C
At 12:50 PM, Unknown said…

That they are NOT the same size for the reason provided. The reason you continue to avoid.

I KNOW you think that, that's why I said you disagree with Cantor.

How close to 0 can multiplying by 1/2 get you?

If the lower bound of your sequence of decreasing cardinals (N, N/2, N/4, N/8/ N/16 . . . ) is zero which is a finite number and the N-divided-by-somethings are getting closer and closer to zero then at some point they cease being infinite. This is why I'm asking you what the lower bound is. Because I don't think it can be zero but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Your system, you tell me.

What would Cantor say, seeing that you are too much of a coward to answer for yourself.

I already told you, many times. Cantor and I would say that N, N/2, N/4, N/8 . . . are all the same cardinality. That the sets represented by those cardinalities are all the same size. Do you want me to say that again?

Let set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
Let set B = {2,4,6,8,10,12...}
Let set C = {1,3,5,7,9,11...}

A-B=C and A-C=B. Then A>B and A>C

Yes, I know that's what you think, we've been over that many times already. I\m trying to see what the implications of your system are!! I don't know why you're not getting the question.

THIS IS what I'm asking, AGAIN;

A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . . } has cardinality N

B = {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . . } the even numbers has cardinality N/2 according to you (but N according to Cantor).

C = (4, 8, 12, 16 . . . } the multiples of 4 has cardinality N/4 according to you (but N according to Cantor).

D = {8, 16, 24, 32 . . . } the multiples of 8 has cardinality N/8 according to you (but N according to Cantor).

I think that shows the difference between you and Cantor.

Now, IN YOUR APPROACH, where N > N/2 < N/4 > N/8 > N/16 . . . . does the sequence of decreasing cardinal numbers N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . have a lower bound, that is a number below which they do not get? If they do then what is that lower bound? If you think it's zero then just say so. If it's not zero then tell me what it is. If there is no lower bound then say so. Easy peasy.

That's it. It's a question of how your system works. I can't answer it because I think it's flawed BUT I don't want to put words in your mouth so I"m asking you to tell me the answer to my question.

This is not about me, it's about YOUR SYSTEM that you came up with. Why won't you tell me about it?
At 1:19 PM, Joe G said…

I KNOW you think that, that's why I said you disagree with Cantor.

Cantor's dead and so is his idea on infinite sets.

How close to 0 can multiplying by 1/2 get you?

If the lower bound of your sequence of decreasing cardinals (N, N/2, N/4, N/8/ N/16 . . . ) is zero which is a finite number and the N-divided-by-somethings are getting closer and closer to zero then at some point they cease being infinite.

You are NOT answering the question.

Let set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
Let set B = {2,4,6,8,10,12...}
Let set C = {1,3,5,7,9,11...}

A-B=C and A-C=B. Then A>B and A>C

Yes, I know that's what you think,

So you are saying that is not true? Really?

And why would there be a lower bound with my scheme seeing that there is NOT a lower bound for dividing by 2?
At 1:24 PM, Unknown said…

Cantor's dead and so is his idea on infinite sets.

Look, I am asking you about your scheme, your approach.

You are NOT answering the question.

You can get as close as you want to to zero, clearly. But since you took Set Theory and Calculus you would know that.

So you are saying that is not true? Really?

You know I am. I"ve been saying so for days . . .weeks . . . months.

Are you going to answer the question about your system or not?

And why would there be a lower bound with my scheme seeing that there is NOT a lower bound for dividing by 2?

There is a lower bound for dividing a positive finite number by 2, the lower bound is zero.

But, regardless, I'm asking you what your scheme says. You might have a different answer.

Just answer the question Joe. You've danced an dodged long enough.
At 1:38 PM, Joe G said…

There is a lower bound for dividing a positive finite number by 2, the lower bound is zero.

So if we keep dividing by 2 we will reach zero? Really?
At 2:01 PM, Unknown said…

So if we keep dividing by 2 we will reach zero? Really?

If you take 100, divide by two (get 50), divided by two again (get 25 OR divide your starting number by 4), divided by two again (get 12.5 OR divide your starting number by 8), divide by two again (get 6.25 OR divided your starting number by 16), etc your results as you continue this process get closer and closer to zero. You never get there but you get closer and closer.

In fact, if you specify when will I get within a certain tolerance or distance from zero I can tell you which step that will happen.

So, once again, does your sequence of decreasing cardinal numbers: N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . have a lower bound? If yes is it zero? Yes or no? If no then what is it. If it doesn't have a lower bound then . . . you tell me.

I don't know why you are dodging the question. Since you've taken Set Theory and Calculus and you have a tested IQ of over 150. You seem to be dithering a lot.

It's your call but I would think you could have answered the question a long time ago.
At 2:04 PM, Joe G said…

As I had said earlier- the cardinality LB for my scheme is the largest finite number. Jerad wanted me to give it a name and became lost when I didn't.
At 2:15 PM, Unknown said…

As I had said earlier- the cardinality LB for my scheme is the largest finite number. Jerad wanted me to give it a name and became lost when I didn't.

Okay, that's fine. What's the largest finite number then?

Your scheme, your call.

Why didn't you just say: LB (my name) is the largest finite number?
At 2:25 PM, Unknown said…

I have now asked you many, many times:

In your scheme, which disagrees with Cantor, you assert that the cardinality, N, of the integers is bigger than the cardinality of the even numbers, N/2 in your scheme, which is bigger than the cardinality of the multiples of 4, N/4 in your scheme, which is bigger than the cardinality of the multiples of 8, N/8 in your scheme.

IF I take your sequence of decreasing cardinalities: N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . is there a lower bound to this sequence, that is, is there a value which those cardinalities DO NOT drop below.

I'm asking you a question from within your system. You don't need to attack Cantor. You don't need to attack me. You just need to explain how your system addresses this issue. That's it.
At 3:16 PM, Unknown said…

I am completely bemused.

You say you have a tested IQ above 150.

You say you've taken courses in Set Theory and Calculus.

But you haven't answered a fairly basic question:

If N is the cardinality of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . }

And N/2 is the cardinality of the multiples of 2: {2,4, 6, 8 . . } which you say is smaller than N.

And N/4 is the cardinality of the multiples of 4: {4, 8,12, 16 . . . } which you say is smaller than N/2

etc.

Then does your sequence of decreasing cardinal numbers: N > N/2 > N/4 > N/8 > N/16 . . . have a lower bound. That is does that sequence of cardinal numbers always stay above some value?

That's the question. Easy peasy. Why won't you answer it?

Note please: I am asking from within your system. I am saying: IF your method is true then what does it say about this situation. That means you cannot argue that I haven't accepted your precepts. I am asking a question GIVEN your assumptions. That means assuming your assumptions are correct.

Not that I should have to explain any of this to someone with a tested IQ of above 150 who has taken courses in Set Theory and Calculus.
At 4:53 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad, I have answered your question. OTOH all you can do s bluff when I ask a simple question.

Then does your sequence of decreasing cardinal numbers: N > N/2 > N/4 > N/8 > N/16 . . . have a lower bound. That is does that sequence of cardinal numbers always stay above some value?

The LFN. The LFN grows until the universe ends.

Now please show us some examples of Cantor's concept- the one I disagree with- in a practical application. Or just admit that you are a bluffing dolt.
At 4:57 PM, Joe G said…

Note please: I am asking from within your system. I am saying: IF your method is true then what does it say about this situation. That means you cannot argue that I haven't accepted your precepts. I am asking a question GIVEN your assumptions. That means assuming your assumptions are correct.

Well dumbass, AGAIN, in my system it would be getting further and further away from the standard. And being orders of infinity would do so infinitely.

If you had an IQ of 150 or greater you would have grasped that when I first brought it up. If you had any mathematical knowledge, other than parroting dead people, you would have grasped that.

You start with a STANDARD and then have varying degrees off of that. Is that too much for your low double-digit IQ to handle?
At 2:08 AM, Jerad said…

The LFN. The LFN grows until the universe ends.

There is no largest finite number for rather obvious reasons. There is a largest known prime number but that gets beaten every so often.

A lower bound is like a fence, it's a fixed line which doesn't get crossed. Even if there were a largest finite number it can't be a lower bound if it changes.

In fact no finite number can be the lower bound of a decreasing sequence of infinite cardinals. If the infinite cardinals are getting closer and closer to the lower bound and the lower bound is finite then eventually the cardinals would have to become finite as well and that runs counter to what you are saying.

Also, you are saying the sequence of cardinals N, N/2, N/4, N/8 . . . is decreasing while you are saying the largest finite number is increasing in which case . . . where do they meet? If the largest finite number is the lower bound for the sequence? 'Cause the sequence has to get closer and closer to the lower bound.

Now please show us some examples of Cantor's concept- the one I disagree with- in a practical application. Or just admit that you are a bluffing dolt.

How can I be bluffing when I said it doesn't have many (if any) practical, real world applications? I said it is foundational to modern mathematics. You can look that up on Wikipedia easily.

Well dumbass, AGAIN, in my system it would be getting further and further away from the standard. And being orders of infinity would do so infinitely.

What standard are you talking about? N? ???

I've typed N > N/2 > N/4 > N/8 > N/16 . . .

many times now, does that not represent what your system is?

If you had an IQ of 150 or greater you would have grasped that when I first brought it up. If you had any mathematical knowledge, other than parroting dead people, you would have grasped that.

Well, since what you are claiming/saying runs counter to all known infinite mathematics I think it's fair to ask you to fill in the details and not make assumptions.

You start with a STANDARD and then have varying degrees off of that. Is that too much for your low double-digit IQ to handle?

I still don't know what standard you are talking about. You haven't used that term before so I just want to be clear. I think you mean N.

Oh, an by the way . . .

If the cardinality of {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } is N then is the cardinality of { . . . -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . . } 2N?

What about {0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5 . . . . }? Is the cardinality of that set 2N as well?

I'm just wondering if you can get a sequence of ever increasing cardinalities N, 2n, 4N, 8N . . . . and if you can does that sequence have an upper bound?

Again Cantor would say that all those sets have the same cardinality. Cantor hypothosized that the next largest set after the integers is the real numbers and he proved that there are definitely more real numbers than integers.
At 6:02 AM, Joe G said…

There is no largest finite number for rather obvious reasons?

What reasons? Please be specific.

Even if there were a largest finite number it can't be a lower bound if it changes.

Cuz you say so? Fuck you.

In fact no finite number can be the lower bound of a decreasing sequence of infinite cardinals

Cuz you say so? Fuxck you.

Hey this is easy peasy

If the infinite cardinals are getting closer and closer to the lower bound and the lower bound is finite then eventually the cardinals would have to become finite as well and that runs counter to what you are saying.

YOU are a DUMBASS. By your logic dividing by two will get you to zero and we know that is false.

How can I be bluffing when I said it doesn't have many (if any) practical, real world applications?

Then fuck off as it is obviously meaningless

I said it is foundational to modern mathematics.

It can't be if it is useless. It's as if you are proud to be ignorant.

Again Cantor would say that all those sets have the same cardinality.

And basic set mathematics proves that Cantor was wrong. So fuck you.
At 6:09 AM, Joe G said…

I'm just wondering if you can get a sequence of ever increasing cardinalities N, 2n, 4N, 8N . . . .

If you have to wonder then obviously you are too stupid to follow along

and if you can does that sequence have an upper bound?

Obviously you ARE too stupid to follow along.
At 9:29 AM, Unknown said…

There is no largest finite number for rather obvious reasons?

What reasons? Please be specific.

Because you can always find a bigger one. By adding one. By multiplying by two. By squaring the number.

Even if there were a largest finite number it can't be a lower bound if it changes.

Cuz you say so? Fuck you.

Because it doesn't make sense. A bound value is like a fence, it keeps things in. It doesn't make sense to have a moving fence. If you want a bound that moves you'd best come up with another term.

I don't understand you. I'm asking questions, I'm attempting to answer your questions and all I get is abuse. What is your problem?

In fact no finite number can be the lower bound of a decreasing sequence of infinite cardinals

Cuz you say so? Fuxck you.

Because then the infinite numbers which get closer and closer to the boundary ad infinitum would eventual have to become finite. As I said.

YOU are a DUMBASS. By your logic dividing by two will get you to zero and we know that is false.

If divide a finite number by two, and then that result by two, and then that result by two, etc you will get closer and closer to zero. Do it on your calculator. If you start with 10 you get 5, then 2.5, then 1.25, then .625, then .3125 . . . closer and closer to zero.

Then fuck off as it is obviously meaningless

Then why have you bothered to come up with an alternative to Cantor if it is meaningless? Why do you continue to argue about it?

I said it is foundational to modern mathematics.

It can't be if it is useless. It's as if you are proud to be ignorant.

Well, I did study the material and read some of the Wikipedia pages just to refresh my memory. I'm not the one who is ignorant.

Again Cantor would say that all those sets have the same cardinality.

And basic set mathematics proves that Cantor was wrong. So fuck you.

Finite set theory works differently from infinite set theory. Cantor recognised that and figured out a system that would give consistent results.

I'm just wondering if you can get a sequence of ever increasing cardinalities N, 2n, 4N, 8N . . . .

If you have to wonder then obviously you are too stupid to follow along

I didn't want to make an assumption about the way your system behaves, I thought you'd appreciate that. Instead I get abuse.

Obviously you ARE too stupid to follow along.

If you want to show that your approach is superior to Cantor's then you have to show that your approach can handle certain situations and lines of questioning. If you can't be bothered then neither can I.
At 11:22 AM, Joe G said…

Because you can always find a bigger one. By adding one. By multiplying by two. By squaring the number.

Then that number is the largest- it keeps growing.

A bound value is like a fence, it keeps things in.

And that is what is happening with what I said.

Because then the infinite numbers which get closer and closer to the boundary ad infinitum would eventual have to become finite.

Infinite numbers? Talk about gibberish.

By your logic dividing by two will get you to zero and we know that is false.

If divide a finite number by two, and then that result by two, and then that result by two, etc you will get closer and closer to zero. Do it on your calculator. If you start with 10 you get 5, then 2.5, then 1.25, then .625, then .3125 . . . closer and closer to zero.

Choke. It never reaches zero, Jerad.

Then why have you bothered to come up with an alternative to Cantor if it is meaningless?

Because of assholes like you who insist Cantor really means something by saying countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You treat Cantor as if he was God.

Well, I did study the material and read some of the Wikipedia pages just to refresh my memory.

Look, Jerad, if a mathematical concept is useless then it cannot be a foundation of mathematics, duh.

Finite set theory works differently from infinite set theory.

That is the propaganda. However everything seems to work the exact same except for one meaningless part.

If you want to show that your approach is superior to Cantor's

I already have and no one can prove differently because Cantor's concept is useless and that means it can never be proven.
At 1:30 PM, Unknown said…

Then that number is the largest- it keeps growing.

I don't see how you can have a fence, a boundary that keeps moving. Besides, if the largest finite number keeps growing why won't it become infinite at some point?

And that is what is happening with what I said.

I disagree. The sequence of cardinals N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . is getting smaller and smaller. Your largest finite number is getting larger and larger. How can those two processes continue forever without meeting?

By your logic dividing by two will get you to zero and we know that is false.

CLOSER to zero. Or, as close as you want.

Choke. It never reaches zero, Jerad.

But it eventually gets as close as you could want. You specify a starting number and a tolerance, a finite closeness to zero, and I can tell you how many divisions by two you'd have to do to beat that tolerance.

Because of assholes like you who insist Cantor really means something by saying countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You treat Cantor as if he was God.

So what? It doesn't affect you. You're not a research mathematician. It doesn't affect your daily life. Why not just leave it alone? Why all the fuss?

Look, Jerad, if a mathematical concept is useless then it cannot be a foundation of mathematics, duh.

But, it's not useless if it's a foundation stone. Which it is. That's why it was argued over and fought over when it was first proposed. It did not get adapted immediately.

That is the propaganda. However everything seems to work the exact same except for one meaningless part.

You need to study more Set Theory.

I already have and no one can prove differently because Cantor's concept is useless and that means it can never be proven.

Other approaches, including yours lead to contradictions. Some of my questions to you are to see if you are avoiding the contradictions.
At 3:58 PM, Joe G said…

I don't see how you can have a fence, a boundary that keeps moving.

So if an island grows its boundary doesn't?

Besides, if the largest finite number keeps growing why won't it become infinite at some point?

LoL! Infinity isn't a number.

The sequence of cardinals N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . is getting smaller and smaller. Your largest finite number is getting larger and larger. How can those two processes continue forever without meeting?

You obviously have issues in following along. The LFN stops when the universe does. Infinity doesn't stop.

But, it's not useless if it's a foundation stone.

It isn't a foundation, Jerad. Subjective measures cannot be the foundation of mathematics.

Set theory may be a foundation to mathematics but not the cardinality of infinite sets.

Other approaches, including yours lead to contradictions.

Please name these contradictions and be specific. Cantor's leads to a contradictions which many people have named, including contradicting set mathematics.

And yes this argument affects me because assholes like you say that my idea is wrong yet you cannot show why without a mathematical trick.
At 4:41 PM, Unknown said…

So if an island grows its boundary doesn't?

It depends on the boundary and how big the island grows doesn't it?

I am suggesting that your decreasing sequence of cardinal numbers: N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . is decreasing with some non-finite lower bound. Otherwise how could it not drop into the finites?

I am also saying that the idea of a largest finite number is rubbish since, as you have agreed, it continues to increase. So, there is no largest finite number. You can't name it or use it. It doesn't exist.

I don't think you appreciate how much mathematicians considered and dealt with these issues already.

Besides, if the largest finite number keeps growing why won't it become infinite at some point?

LoL! Infinity isn't a number.

What do you think infinity is then? You said your largest finite number would increase without bound forever . . . what doe you call that?

You obviously have issues in following along. The LFN stops when the universe does. Infinity doesn't stop.

Really? At what rate are you counting the largest finite number? When does the universe stop? Can I count twice as fast and get a number twice as large?

Seriously this is not making a lot of sense. Are you actually implying there is some cosmic clock that started when the universe began and will end when it ends? What time is it now on that universal clock then?

It isn't a foundation, Jerad. Subjective measures cannot be the foundation of mathematics.

But it's not subjective. Just because you don't like it or accept it or understand the theorems doesn't make it subjective.

Set theory may be a foundation to mathematics but not the cardinality of infinite sets.

I say it is. And I say it's possible to read about that in open source material that you can access on the internet.

Please name these contradictions and be specific. Cantor's leads to a contradictions which many people have named, including contradicting set mathematics.

Well, mathematics has accepted Cantor's conclusions so I don't think you'll find a contradiction there.

I am asking questions of your method which I think will illuminate the contradictions in your scheme. But you have to answer the questions.

And yes this argument affects me because assholes like you say that my idea is wrong yet you cannot show why without a mathematical trick.

I still don't see why you just don't walk away and forget about the whole thing. No tricks. Do you want to test your system or not?
At 6:13 PM, Joe G said…

I am suggesting that your decreasing sequence of cardinal numbers: N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . is decreasing with some non-finite lower bound.

I am saying you are looking at it incorrectly. It is just decreasing from the standard.

What do you think infinity is then?

It isn't a number. It is a journey- even oleg t agrees with that.

You said your largest finite number would increase without bound forever

No, YOU said that. I said it would stop growing when the universe ends.

When does the universe stop?

I assume when the collapse is finished.

But it's not subjective.

Yes, it is. And just because you can say it isn't doesn't mean anything because you have already admitted that it doesn't have any practical application.

Please name these contradictions and be specific. Cantor's leads to a contradictions which many people have named, including contradicting set mathematics.

Well, mathematics has accepted Cantor's conclusions so I don't think you'll find a contradiction there.

Just cuz something is accepted doesn't mean shit, Jerad. I have pointed out Cantor's contradictions. And just because you can hand-wave them away doesn't mean shit either. And you didn't say what the contradictions with my scheme were.

I am asking questions of your method which I think will illuminate the contradictions in your scheme.

Nope, you are just fishing and not catching anything. Obviously all you are capable of is parroting the party line.

And I am open to testing my system. Please send someone who is capable of doing so as you have proven to be both incompetent and a liar.

BTW I searched on "foundations of mathematics" and I didn't read anything that supports your claims. Perhaps you should just link to something that does or fuck off.
At 2:39 AM, Unknown said…

I am suggesting that your decreasing sequence of cardinal numbers: N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . is decreasing with some non-finite lower bound.

I am saying you are looking at it incorrectly. It is just decreasing from the standard.

You seem to want cardinal arithmetic to behave like finite arithmetic. In finite arithmetic when you divide by 2 over and over again you get closer to a lower bound of 2 so why wouldn't the sequence N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . . have a lower bound?

When does the universe stop?

I assume when the collapse is finished.

What collapse?

Yes, it is. And just because you can say it isn't doesn't mean anything because you have already admitted that it doesn't have any practical application.

It's not subjective. Theorems are not subjective.

Please name these contradictions and be specific. Cantor's leads to a contradictions which many people have named, including contradicting set mathematics.

Here's a proof that the cardinality of the integers, aleph-null, is the smallest cardinal number.

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/517040/proof-that-aleph-null-is-the-smallest-transfinite-number

This is a theorem, it's not subjective. Your method is contrary to this.

Just cuz something is accepted doesn't mean shit, Jerad. I have pointed out Cantor's contradictions. And just because you can hand-wave them away doesn't mean shit either. And you didn't say what the contradictions with my scheme were.

Aside from the fact that you claim that the cardinality of the integers is NOT the smallest cardinal number . . .

You say the sequence N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . does not have a non-finite lower bound. This is clearly nonsense. You refuse to accept the bijection procedure even though you accept it for finite sets. You say there is a largest finite number which is clearly rubbish. You find some mathematical work that uses the largest finite number in its statements. Go on.

And I am open to testing my system. Please send someone who is capable of doing so as you have proven to be both incompetent and a liar.

Trouble is, your work is so ridiculous most people couldn't be bothered.

BTW I searched on "foundations of mathematics" and I didn't read anything that supports your claims. Perhaps you should just link to something that does or fuck off.

Read this article about Georg Cantor, some of his influence is discussed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

This article discusses the arithmetic of cardinal numbers, just for reference, so you can see how the system has been worked out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number

(Note that that article also contains this statement: It is also possible for a proper subset of an infinite set to have the same cardinality as the original set, something that cannot happen with proper subsets of finite sets. This is something you denied was true for quite a while.)

Because I know you will deny all this as not proving Cantor's work is foundational because that particular word is not used this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

makes plain that Cantor started modern set theory and that set theory is foundational to mathematics. It also points out that set theory has current research.

And these are just the obvious Wikipedia articles.

Would you like me to Google something else for you?
At 7:22 AM, Joe G said…

What collapse?

Jerad is ignorant of cosmology too.

Trouble is, your work is so ridiculous most people couldn't be bothered.

That is your ignorant opinion.

Read this article about Georg Cantor, some of his influence is discussed.

Nothing that supports your claim. Try again.

(Note that that article also contains this statement: It is also possible for a proper subset of an infinite set to have the same cardinality as the original set, something that cannot happen with proper subsets of finite sets. This is something you denied was true for quite a while.)

You are fucking retarded, Jerad. I KNOW WHAT THE MAINSTREAM SEZ YOU FUCKING IDIOT. AND I HAVE PROVEN IT TO BE WRONG USING BASIC SET MATHEMATICS.

Because I know you will deny all this as not proving Cantor's work is foundational because that particular word is not used this article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

makes plain that Cantor started modern set theory and that set theory is foundational to mathematics. It also points out that set theory has current research.

Jerad the fucking asshole strikes again. There isn't anything in those articles that states the foundation of mathematics is the claim that countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. Either you are an ignorant asshole or just a bluffing coward.
At 7:28 AM, Joe G said…

It's not subjective.

It is subjective for then reasons provided. Ignoring those reasons will not make them go away.

Theorems are not subjective.

I am sure they can be- or perhaps they aren't theorems at all.

Here's a proof that the cardinality of the integers, aleph-null, is the smallest cardinal number.

It isn't a proof.

This is a theorem, it's not subjective. Your method is contrary to this.

LoL! You are a moron, Jerad. You have to find internal inconsistencies- of course competing ideas will be contrary to each other in at least some aspects.

It's as if you are proud to be an ignorant asswipe, Jerad.

You say the sequence N, N/2, N/4, N/8, N/16 . . . does not have a non-finite lower bound. This is clearly nonsense.

It may be to you but then again you are ignorant and willfully so.

Trouble is, your work is so ridiculous most people couldn't be bothered.

Trouble is you are a moron who can only parrot dead people.
At 9:36 AM, Unknown said…

Read this article about Georg Cantor, some of his influence is discussed.

Nothing that supports your claim. Try again.

I don't think I'll bother. You are not going to change your opinion so it's pointless to try.

(Note that that article also contains this statement: It is also possible for a proper subset of an infinite set to have the same cardinality as the original set, something that cannot happen with proper subsets of finite sets. This is something you denied was true for quite a while.)

You are fucking retarded, Jerad. I KNOW WHAT THE MAINSTREAM SEZ YOU FUCKING IDIOT. AND I HAVE PROVEN IT TO BE WRONG USING BASIC SET MATHEMATICS.

I posted a link to a proof of that theorem and you didn't find a mistake in the proof.

Jerad the fucking asshole strikes again. There isn't anything in those articles that states the foundation of mathematics is the claim that countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. Either you are an ignorant asshole or just a bluffing coward.

Gee, let's think: Cantor showed that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality, Cantor helped kick start the modern study of Set Theory with his work, Set Theory is considered by many to be foundational to mathematics . . . hmmm . . . .

It is subjective for then reasons provided. Ignoring those reasons will not make them go away.

Theorem proofs are not subjective. Historical development is not subjective.

Theorems are not subjective.

I am sure they can be- or perhaps they aren't theorems at all.

That statement alone proves to me that you understand very little of mathematics. What's the point in showing you evidence when you can't even understand it? A theorem is something THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE TRUE. I'm wasting my time . . .

Here's a proof that the cardinality of the integers, aleph-null, is the smallest cardinal number.

It isn't a proof.

This from someone who thinks theorems are subjective. What a joke.

LoL! You are a moron, Jerad. You have to find internal inconsistencies- of course competing ideas will be contrary to each other in at least some aspects.

I told you: it makes no sense to say the lower bound of a sequence of decreasing infinite cardinals is a (changing) finite number. And you stamping your feet and shouting doesn't make it true.

You can't understand research mathematics if you can't understand what a theorem is. Like Mapou you can probably be taught to follow some formulae or techniques but you'll never be able to develop anything new. You think it's just a matter of saying something that sounds right to you.

I've had enough of this. You never really intended to take anything I said seriously. You don't understand the sources and references I provide that you asked for and most of them are just Wikipedia articles. You've got your own goofy, non-sensical method which you haven't published or defended in an academic environment. You haven't shown it to be useful in helping to solve a problems or develop further mathematics. AND over 100 years of mathematicians have decided another approach works better.
At 9:48 AM, Joe G said…

Cantor showed that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality,

No, he didn't show that. He just contrived something and it fooled people like you. OTOH I have used basic set math to show that some countably infinite sets are larger than others. And like the coward you are you have never dealt with that fact other than to hand-wave it away.

I told you: it makes no sense to say the lower bound of a sequence of decreasing infinite cardinals is a (changing) finite number.

True, I was only trying to placate an ignorant child. My version has varying degrees of difference from the standard, just as I have told you several times now. Obviously your low IQ is the issue here.

AND over 100 years of mathematicians have decided another approach works better.

It doesn't work at all- even you admitted it doesn't have any practical use.
At 9:53 AM, Unknown said…

No, he didn't show that. He just contrived something and it fooled people like you. OTOH I have used basic set math to show that some countably infinite sets are larger than others. And like the coward you are you have never dealt with that fact other than to hand-wave it away.

I'm not talking to you about it anymore since you don't understand what a theorem is or what a proof is so you cannot understand the theorems I've linked to.

True, I was only trying to placate an ignorant child. My version has varying degrees of difference from the standard, just as I have told you several times now. Obviously your low IQ is the issue here.

That doesn't make any more sense.

It doesn't work at all- even you admitted it doesn't have any practical use.

How would you know since you don't understand what theorems are?
At 1:46 PM, Joe G said…

Jerad, It is this alleged theorem I am challenging.

Dude, it's as if you have no fucking clue.

The "theorem" should just state:

The cardinality of all countably infinite sets is equal because when determining cardinality each element is relabeled to {E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6...}, regardless of what they were before, for instance when trying to determine if one set is a proper subset of another and during basic set mathematics, like subtraction. This relabeling creates a derived one-to-one correspondence with respect to all countably infinite sets.

The proof is trivial as E1=E1, E2=E2,E3=E3...

My version has varying degrees of difference from the standard, just as I have told you several times now. Obviously your low IQ is the issue here.

That doesn't make any more sense.

As expected...
At 4:50 PM, Unknown said…

The cardinality of all countably infinite sets is equal because when determining cardinality each element is relabeled to {E1,E2,E3,E4,E5,E6...}, regardless of what they were before, for instance when trying to determine if one set is a proper subset of another and during basic set mathematics, like subtraction. This relabeling creates a derived one-to-one correspondence with respect to all countably infinite sets.

Let's see . . . how about this then:

Let Set ! be = {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . }

So E1 i = 1, E2 = 2, E3 = 3, E4 = 4, etc. Simple.

Let Set 2 be = {2, 4, 6, 8 . . . }

So, for Set 2: E1 = 2, E2 = 4, E3 = 6, E4 = 8, etc.

Oh look, every element of Set 1 is and E-something. And every element of Set 2 is an E-something. No element of either set is left out, they are all an E-something.

Gosh, it looks like those two sets have the same number of elements. But, but . . . that would mean they are the same size!! I mean, if they weren't, if one set was bigger than the other then something in the bigger set wouldn't be an E-something would it? It would have to be left out. But none are.

OH WAIT, that's what the one-to-one correspondence is!! Line both sets up and see if every element of one set uniquely matches up with an element of the other set.

That's the way it works with finite sets. And I know someone who thinks infinite sets should work the same way as finite sets. So . . . I guess . . . those two sets really are the same size.

The proof is trivial as E1=E1, E2=E2,E3=E3...

Yup, done.

My version has varying degrees of difference from the standard, just as I have told you several times now. Obviously your low IQ is the issue here.

You helped show that Cantor was right. Excellent work!!

Intelligent Reasoning

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Intelligent Design is Alive, Well and Still Going Strong

410 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts