Richie TARDBOY Hughes- So Ignorant and Proud of it
-
Richie TARDBOY Hughes is so fucking ignorant that it thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer. Seriously, see for yourselves- I had posted:
What a total fucking jackass Richard T Hughes is! It thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer.
Thank you Richie, my father's day got off to a great start. And that cupcake tried to tell me that I don't understand the ID fundamentals when it is obvious that it doesn't understand anything.
Richie TARDBOY Hughes is so fucking ignorant that it thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer. Seriously, see for yourselves- I had posted:
Concerning life on earth it is very possible to have an ET designer. And SOP requires that we take it one step at a time- proximate as opposed to ultimate.
That means only an imbecile would give a rat's ass about the origin of our designer(s). Enter Carpathian and Richie the Cupcake.And ignoramus Richie responded with:
Some guy called Dembski, 2001: "Appendix: Design-Theoretic Research Problems....
15. Identity Problem -- Who is the designer?"
Who to take seriously. Hmmmmm.BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What a total fucking jackass Richard T Hughes is! It thinks that the identity of the designer is the same as the origin of the designer.
Thank you Richie, my father's day got off to a great start. And that cupcake tried to tell me that I don't understand the ID fundamentals when it is obvious that it doesn't understand anything.
posted by Joe G @ 9:15 AM
134 Comments:
At 1:40 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh dear.
1. Where is this ID SOP? Can you link to it?
2. Why doesn't Dembski mention it, referring to "who is the designer instead?"
3. Do you think you can have both the UPB or ET as a designer? (I see you quote minded that away like a good little creationist)
Poor old chubs, banned from UD for being a tard, back with a sock puppet who he's not bright enough to disguise and his boyfriend KF wouldn't stand up for him.
At 1:49 PM,
Joe G said…
1- SCIENCE SOP, moron. Science says to focus on proximate rather than ultimate causes. We can't say anything about the ORIGIN of our designer(s) without being able to study the designer(s).
2- That is an ID research project and has nothing to do with the ORIGIN of the designer. Virgil Cain was talking about the ORIGIN.
3- I don't even know what that means. If UPB = upper probability bound, well that isn't a designer. I told you there isn't enough probabilistic resources to get a living organism without an intelligent designer. (I see you quote mined that away like a good little evoTARD)
Poor Richie, too stupid to make an argument and too stupid to understand that he is a proven ignorant asshole.
At 2:13 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
1. Source? Or are you bulshitting (again)
2. How do you know what virgil means? Are you chubby Joe, really Tardy Virgil? *shock!*
3. UPB <> Upper Probability Bound for ID, its https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound
ID "Leader" Joe. So ignorant of the basics. No wonder they booted you from ID, you're an embarrassment.
At 2:29 PM,
Joe G said…
1- Any science textbook that discusses methodology
2- It's what Virgil SAYS, dumbass
3- You are obviously proud to be willfully ignorant
At 2:34 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
1. Any particular one, fail queen? Give a good citation.
2. Are you claiming not to be Virgil? Tragic.
3. Yes, you failed ID 101, "Leader".
At 2:59 PM,
Joe G said…
1- Your ignorance is amusing
2- You obviously cannot read
3- You obviously are proud to be willfully ignorant
At 3:03 PM,
Joe G said…
As for FAIL QUEEN- That is you, asswipe. YOU confused the origin of the designer with the identity of the designer. You think I have to figure out what Virgil means when it is all there for everyone to read. You think that UPB can design and is actually relevant.
At 3:06 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
LOL@chubby in full dodge mode.
Do you often have written exchanges with people who 'obviously cannot read', fat ass?
The only obvious things are your evasions and idiocy, "ID Leader". ;)
At 3:20 PM,
Joe G said…
Dodge mode? I have exposed your ignorance you moron.
At 3:46 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Priceless.
You exposed yourself by not knowing what the UPB (ID 101) was or its entailments.
BUT.. even better, we have a knew kid on the UD block:
Virgil Cain - with a very limited vocabulary, small IQ and a short yet familar set of talking points, who could this be?
Joe assures us its not him.
Perhaps it is Jim? ID GUY? Frisbee Kid? I know.. it's John Paul!
At 4:04 PM,
Joe G said…
You exposed yourself by not knowing what the UPB (ID 101) was or its entailments
No, dumbass. I told you it was irrelevant to what was being discussed. I further explained that it doesn't matter as your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing a living organism regardless of the probabilistic resources.
Joe assures us its not him.
And yet I never said nor implied anything of the kind. Obviously you are just an evoTARD on a deluded agenda.
Also YOU confused the origin of the designer with the identity of the designer. Proof positive that you are an ignorant asshole.
At 4:07 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
If an *ID concept* rules out an *ID explanation* it is relevant. You should learn the basics, "ID leader". I'll explain if you don't get them.
Still no citation? You lying again? SHOCKING!
So are you or are you not Virgil Cain, Joe?
At 4:13 PM,
Joe G said…
If an *ID concept* rules out an *ID explanation* it is relevant.
Make your case. The ORIGIN of a designer is NOT the same as the identity of the designer. Those are two different concepts, dumbass.
What citation, cupcake? We proceed with the evidence for a crime BEFORE we start looking for criminals and their motives. Again your ignorance, while amusing, means nothing.
So are you or are you not Virgil Cain, Joe?
Go to UD and ask Virgil. :)
At 4:16 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Of course you weren't going to give an straight answer (you never do - like where is that citation for SOP?) but as always you make my point for me:
LOL@chubby in full dodge mode.
At 4:32 PM,
Joe G said…
SOP- first comes evidence for a crime and THEN one looks for criminals and motives. Proximate first.
Straight answer- only an imbecile confuses the IDENTITY of the designer with the the ORIGIN of the designer. You did exactly that and that is why this thread exists- due to your ignorance. That means you have already made the point that you are an ignorant asshole and now you are in full flail mode. A sad attempt to try to distract and deceive.
At 4:39 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
SOP - still no citation? Shocking!
If something is impossible, then it cannot be. Origin and identity inseparable by these two ID concepts you don't understand.
Are you Virgil, as you're giving straight answers?
At 4:43 PM,
Joe G said…
SOP- explained. That you are too stupid to understand it just proves my point.
If something is impossible, then it cannot be.
Then it isn't. A living organism is impossible under the materialistic framework and that is why the materialistic framework cannot be correct.
Origin and identity inseparable by these two ID concepts
Cuz you say so? Fuck you, asshole. Make your case. I dare you.
Are you Virgil, as you're giving straight answers?
Virgil will answer you over on UD.
At 4:50 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So ET isn't the designer under "ID logic". Well done, you're very slow but we got you there.
"Virgil will answer you over on UD" - and how would you know that'd he answer? You're such a bad liar and so stupid, a hilarious combination, chubs!
At 4:55 PM,
Joe G said…
So ET isn't the designer under "ID logic".
How do you figure? ET could very well be the designer of earth and us.
and how would you know that'd he answer?
Try it and find out. As I have already said- I identified myself during the registration process. Are you really that stupid that you don't know what that means?
Nice to see that you are too much of a coward to actually make a case.
At 4:57 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
FUCK YOU ARE STUPID.
Quick ID BASICS quiz:
1) What does ID think the implications of the UPB are?
2) What would that mean for earlier advanced civilizations?
At 5:02 PM,
Joe G said…
FUCK YOU ARE DESPERATE AND IGNORANT.
1- The implications are materialism doesn't have a chance nor does it deserve to be discussed in the light of the UPB. ARE YOU THAT FUCKING DULL THAT YOU CAN'T READ WHAT I HAVE BEEN POSTING ON THE SUBJECT?
2- Nothing as we have already determined that materialism is bullshit and ID rules
ID does NOT say that the designer of the universe had to be the designer of all life in the universe.
At 5:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Look at chubs dodge and weave, not very well because he's a lardass stuffed with donuts.
Its so funny that you have called yourself an "ID Leader" - (no one else ever think that, of course), yet you don't understand the very basics of ID or their entailments.
At 5:08 PM,
Joe G said…
I answered your questions. Don't blame me for your FAILure to make a case.
No one would ever go to Richie to find out the very basics of ID or their entailments. Richie has no idea what those are and has proved that in this and many other threads.
At 5:16 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You got the basics wrong.
Read the page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound
compare to the crap you wrote. You even got the name wrong, dipshit.
At 5:20 PM,
Joe G said…
I know what the UPB is, asshole. I also know what Donald Johnson wrote about it. Your position doesn't have a chance and it is well below the UPB- it is a big fat ZERO- it doesn't have a probability you jackass.
What name did I get wrong?
Still can't make a case. Your cowardice runs very deep.
At 5:22 PM,
Joe G said…
A universal probability bound is a probabilistic threshold whose existence is asserted by William A. Dembski and is used by him in his works promoting intelligent design. It is defined as "A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in."[1]
Zero is as low as one can go on the probability scale.
At 5:25 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"I know what the UPB is"
fattytard: "I don't even know what that means. If UPB = upper probability bound.."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Doesn't know ID basics, gets it wrong.
At 5:29 PM,
Joe G said…
So you are desperate:
Dickie:
Do you think you can have both the UPB or ET as a designer?
I don't even know what that means.
Only a fucking retard would say the UPB could be a designer. That is why: If UPB = upper probability bound.
You are one desperate asshole, Dickie.
I know what the UPB is, asshole. I also know what Donald Johnson wrote about it. Your position doesn't have a chance and it is well below the UPB- it is a big fat ZERO- it doesn't have a probability you jackass.
What name did I get wrong?
Still can't make a case. Your cowardice runs very deep.
At 5:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
SO DENSE. Did you got to school at all?
You can't have the ID construct of the UPB and the possibility of ET as a designer. probabilistic resource limitations would be more of a problem for earlier civilizations.
Dullard.
"I know what the UPB is"
fattytard: "I don't even know what that means. If UPB = upper probability bound.."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
Doesn't know ID basics, gets it wrong.
At 5:38 PM,
Joe G said…
You can't have the ID construct of the UPB and the possibility of ET as a designer.
Of course we can. The original designer designed some first life and that first life designed other life. Dumbass.
probabilistic resource limitations would be more of a problem for earlier civilizations.
Not in a design scenario, moron.
I know what the UPB is, asshole. I also know what Donald Johnson wrote about it. Your position doesn't have a chance and it is well below the UPB- it is a big fat ZERO- it doesn't have a probability you jackass.
What name did I get wrong?
Still can't make a case. Your cowardice runs very deep.
Dicjie fag:
Do you think you can have both the UPB or ET as a designer?
OK then, what does that mean? Be specific and show your work.
At 5:51 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Your position doesn't have a chance and it is well below the UPB- it is a big fat ZERO- it doesn't have a probability you jackass."
be specific and show your work.
You seem to think that zero isn't a probability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability
"Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1] Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty"
Math fail. Can you get anything right?
At 5:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Do you think you can have both the UPB or ET as a designer?
How can the upper probability bound be a designer? Do tell. And why did you use the word "or" and "both"?
At 5:58 PM,
Joe G said…
You seem to think that zero isn't a probability:
It is a specific class of probability, called an impossibility. Not all zero probability events are impossible but in this case it is.
At 5:59 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Sentence structure clearly baffles you.
two distinct concepts:
UPB
ET as a designer.
Dullard.
At 6:08 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe: "it is a big fat ZERO- it doesn't have a probability"
but then
Joe: "It is a specific class of probability"
Good work, ID Leader.
At 6:15 PM,
Joe G said…
AGAIN- zero probability does not necessarily mean impossible. Yours is impossible.
Sentence structure clearly baffles you.
I am not the one who used "both" and "or". The correct usage is "either" "or" OR "both" "and".
Do you think you can have both the UPB or ET as a designer?
Stupid talk
Do you think you can have both the UPB and ET as a designer?
Correct form
Do you think you can have either the UPB or ET as a designer?
Also correct form.
At 6:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty)
0 is NOT between 0 and 1.
At 6:25 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
So is or isn't zero a probability, Joe?
Joe: "it is a big fat ZERO- it doesn't have a probability"
but then
Joe: "It is a specific class of probability"
At 6:49 PM,
Joe G said…
In order to have a probability it has to be between zero and one. In probability theory 0 is an impossibility, ie a specific class.
At 8:40 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"In order to have a probability it has to be between zero and one. In probability theory 0 is an impossibility, ie a specific class" - so is it a probability?
At 9:15 PM,
Joe G said…
Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty)
At 11:15 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Chubs chokes.
At 5:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Richie is too stupid to understand English so he spews that I choked.
How does that work, Richie? This entire thread is of you choking.
At 1:55 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Yes or No, is zero a probability?
At 2:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Both zero and one are not probabilities
Geez Rich, couldn't you understand your own reference?
At 2:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Oh I understand it. But I don't thin you do, as you've given contradictory answers. So let's make this easy chubby dodger: Yes or No, is zero a probability?
At 2:50 PM,
Joe G said…
No, assface, I did NOT give contradictory answers. Obviously you are just a pathetic loser. And I answered the question so why are you asking it again? You must be insane as that is what insane people do.
Nice own goal.
At 2:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Is zero part of probability theory? Yes. Is impossibility part of probability theory? Yes.
In order to have a probability it has to be between zero and one. In probability theory 0 is an impossibility, ie a specific class.
12 year olds can grasp that so what is Richie's issue?
At 3:06 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
5 year olds understand; "Yes or No," Fatty. You can't bring yourself to pick one, because you're not sure and we'll all laugh at you (again) when you fail basic math (again).
At 3:23 PM,
Joe G said…
What does "Both zero and one are not probabilities", mean to you, a spineless coward?
5 year olds understand it.
And obviously you didn't understand your own reference:
You seem to think that zero isn't a probability:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability
"Probability is the measure of the likeliness that an event will occur.[1] Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1 (where 0 indicates impossibility and 1 indicates certainty"
Probability is quantified as a number between 0 and 1- BETWEEN- do you know what that word means?
Whoopsie...
At 3:33 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
More chubby chokage! Funnier than a bad donut.
Yes or No?
At 3:36 PM,
Joe G said…
So Richie is saying that he is chubby because he is the only one choking. First he thought that identity was the same as origins, it isn't. Then he thought the UPB is a designer, it can't be. And finally he choked on the word "between", so now he throws his usual hissy-fit tantrum.
Well done, Richie.
At 3:49 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Yes or No, Joe? A question as simple as you are.
At 4:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Already answered, dipshit. You're as simple as your simple question.
At 5:07 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
"Yes or No". I know you're stupid, but it's one of two words.
At 5:40 PM,
Joe G said…
Already answered, dipshit. I know you're stupid but this is beyond the pale.
At 5:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Yes or No, is zero a probability?
At 6:07 PM,
Joe G said…
Yes or no, have you stopped beating your boyfriend?
(there are arguments against zero being a probability, because it represents an impossibility and pontifications that it is, even though it is an impossibility and leads to mathematical issues, ie zero as a numerator. the phrase "zero probability" usually is saved for those cases in which the probabilities are very, very low but never quite reaching zero. not that richie will be able to grasp any of that- see also richie's wiki reference which supports zero not being a probability)
At 2:05 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
You've rolled out petitio principii, but the question does no such thing. Either "Yes, zero is a probability", that is it is in the set of {All possible probabilities} or "No, zero is not a probability", that is it is NOT in the set of {All possible probabilities}.
We can get into the specifics of cromwell's rule, but "usually" <> "always'.
Its amazing how often you choke on basic math.
At 3:17 PM,
Joe G said…
Define probability.
Probability is the chance that something will happen. It can be shown on a line.
Something that is impossible doesn't have a chance of happening.
The probability of an event occurring is somewhere between impossible and certain.
Not from impossible to certainty, inclusive.
So "zero" is a probability if and only if it represents something that is close to but not quite zero, for example something that has a probability of 1 in 10^200 of occurring.
But anyway, I have never choked on math. OTOH you choke on everything. Richie sez "identity is the same as origin" CHOKE. "UPB is a designer" CHOKE. Can't understand his own references- CHOKE
At 4:21 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
WOW. Joe math: 0 > 0. What a tard.
At 4:33 PM,
Joe G said…
Umm, that's probability math, dipshit. See zero probability:
To say that something "has a zero probability of occurring" means that its probability is statistically equivalent to zero.
Wow, just as I have been saying. So with probabilities 0 can be > 0
At 11:19 PM,
Unknown said…
Joe, would I seem insensitive if I said "WAVELENGTH = FREQUENCY?
Too soon?
At 8:46 AM,
Joe G said…
Why would that be insensitive? Is it because you are too stupid to understand it?
At 12:28 AM,
Jerad said…
What's the probability of rolling a 7 with a fair, 6-sided die numbered 1 to 6? It's zero. Not close to zero or a little bit above zero. It's zero.
What's the probability of rolling a number less than 7 with a fair, 6-sided die? It's one. Not almost one or close to one. It's one.
At 8:58 AM,
Joe G said…
What's the probability of rolling a 7 with a fair, 6-sided die numbered 1 to 6?
It's impossible to do so.
What's the probability of rolling a number less than 7 with a fair, 6-sided die?
What happens when the die rolls up against a wall and leans on it such that no number is up? Or perhaps it gets stuck on one of its edges. Then what?
At 9:24 AM,
Jerad said…
It's impossible to do so.
Therefore, the probability of it happening is zero. Not close to zero or almost zero. It's zero.
What happens when the die rolls up against a wall and leans on it such that no number is up? Or perhaps it gets stuck on one of its edges. Then what?
Set up a situation where those things can't happen.
Or . . .
What is the probability of getting a result that is not 7. That probability is 1.
At 10:24 AM,
Joe G said…
If it is impossible it doesn't deserve a probability. And something that is certain, is just that, certain. Not probable, not highly probable, but certain.
At 11:50 AM,
Jerad said…
If it is impossible it doesn't deserve a probability. And something that is certain, is just that, certain. Not probable, not highly probable, but certain.
If something is impossible then it has probability zero. It's not a matter of 'deserving' it or not. It's zero. The probability of someone inventing a perpetual motion machine is zero.
If something is a dead cert then it has probability one. Which means it's going to happen 100% of the time. The probability of someone in the next decade claiming they've invented a perpetual motion machine is 1 or 100% for sure.
At 12:14 PM,
Joe G said…
Not all zero probable things are impossible. And you have no idea what the probability of someone building a perpetual motion machine.
At 2:35 PM,
Jerad said…
Not all zero probable things are impossible.
Name one that isn't. If there is even the remotest chance that something could happen then the probability of it happening is not zero.
And you have no idea what the probability of someone building a perpetual motion machine.
According to the second law of thermodynamics the probability is zero. You're welcome to waste your life trying though.
At 6:06 PM,
Joe G said…
The difference between “impossible” and “zero probability”
Zero-probability events
At 12:47 AM,
Jerad said…
The difference between “impossible” and “zero probability”
A rather too brief explanation of what's better stated and established in the second reference.
Zero-probability events
Interesting. I find it a bit funny/ironic that you've linked to a argument which uses infinite unions and sums. I guess you're going to have to rethink your ideas of infinity eh? They even use the term countable.
Essentially they are saying that the probability of each single outcome is 1 out of infinity which is zero. But obviously each of the outcomes are possible. I'm willing to concede the point (a bit, there are others, like me, who would not put it quite this way) for countably infinite sets.
But my examples with dice don't fall under that criteria. My examples are sample spaces with finite number of outcomes. It will probably be easier if we stick to finite examples since you don't believe in countably infinite cases.
At 7:41 AM,
Joe G said…
I guess you're going to have to rethink your ideas of infinity eh?
Why? There isn't anything about all countably infinite sets having the same cardinality, moron. Perhaps you are just an ignorant ass, Jerad.
It will probably be easier if we stick to finite examples since you don't believe in countably infinite cases.
Only an ignirant asshoe would say something like that and here you are.
You better stick to building blocks and legos...
At 9:21 AM,
Jerad said…
Why? There isn't anything about all countably infinite sets having the same cardinality, moron. Perhaps you are just an ignorant ass, Jerad.
Since you clearly never really understood the concept of countably infinite (as exhibited by your inability to grasp the proof that all countably infinite sets are the same size) then you clearly won't understand their use in the discussion you linked to.
Also, I'd like to point out, you never presented a fully thought out alternative to all countably infinite sets being the same size. That is, you were unable to put all countably infinite sets into a clear heirarchy based on your stated belief. In other words: you didn't come up with a viable alternative.
Only an ignirant asshoe would say something like that and here you are.
But you clearly don't understand how countably infinite sets work. Therefore, you do not understand the material you linked to. You linked to it because you believed it supported your previously held belief.
You better stick to building blocks and legos...
Perhaps you should stick to talking about things you actually know something about. And stop resorting to abuse instead of logically making arguments.
Anyway, I take it you've conceded the point that for finite sample spaces something with zero probability is impossible.
At 9:43 AM,
Joe G said…
Since you clearly never really understood the concept of countably infinite (as exhibited by your inability to grasp the proof that all countably infinite sets are the same size) then you clearly won't understand their use in the discussion you linked to.
I refuted the "proof", moron. Seeing that you clearly don't understand my refutation you aren't in any position to say anything about it. Heck you didn't even understand that infinity is a journey and cantor definitely was ignorant of that concept.
Also, I'd like to point out, you never presented a fully thought out alternative to all countably infinite sets being the same size.
Sure I did. It is basically the same as Cantor's "aleph-X" in which different infinities have different cardinalities.
And guess what? The concept that all countable infinite sets have the same cardinality is not used for anything which makes it a useless concept. Also set subtraction proves the cardinalities of countable infinite sets can be different. You don't even grasp basic math, Jerad.
But you clearly don't understand how countably infinite sets work
That's your ignorant opinion.
You linked to it because you believed it supported your previously held belief.
Bullshit.
Perhaps you should stick to talking about things you actually know something about
I do discuss things that I know about. OTOH you are ignorant and should just shut up.
Anyway, I take it you've conceded the point that for finite sample spaces something with zero probability is impossible.
I never said anything to the contrary. See, here you are making shit up, again.
At 10:00 AM,
Jerad said…
I refuted the "proof", moron. Seeing that you clearly don't understand my refutation you aren't in any position to say anything about it. Heck you didn't even understand that infinity is a journey and cantor definitely was ignorant of that concept.
Nobody except you thinks so. Guess what? You didn't refute the proof and you don't understand the concept of countably infinite sets.
Sure I did. It is basically the same as Cantor's "aleph-X" in which different infinities have different cardinalities.
A concept no one else ever even mentions or uses. A concept you were able to develop into a coherent system. Pure BS about stuff you clearly do not understand.
And guess what? The concept that all countable infinite sets have the same cardinality is not used for anything which makes it a useless concept. Also set subtraction proves the cardinalities of countable infinite sets can be different. You don't even grasp basic math, Jerad.
And how would you know it's not used Joe since you can't understand the math you linked to? Did you even notice it dicusses countably infinite cases? Probably not.
That's your ignorant opinion.
That's a fact since you think you refuted a proof.
Bullshit.
You are the one trying to bluff away your ignorance by making shit up that you cannot support or develop into a coherent system.
I do discuss things that I know about. OTOH you are ignorant and should just shut up.
Except that you don't understand how countably infinite sets works. You have never, ever been able to show that your notions are correct or that anyone else has ever espoused the same crap that you made up. So, you do not understand set theory.
I never said anything to the contrary. See, here you are making shit up, again.
Well, go on, find an example of a zero probability set in a finite sample space that is possible. I bet you can't even find one in an infinite sample space even though you linked to a discussion about that very thing.
At 10:26 AM,
Joe G said…
Nobody except you thinks so.
Einstein was in the same boat.
You didn't refute the proof and you don't understand the concept of countably infinite sets.
Yes I did and yes I do.
And how would you know it's not used Joe since you can't understand the math you linked to?
I know it isn't used Jerad as no one can show me any use for it, moron. And you can't even grasp subtraction so shut up about math.
Except that you don't understand how countably infinite sets works
You don't, Jeard. You are an asshole moron.
Well, go on, find an example of a zero probability set in a finite sample space that is possible.
You are so fucking stupid tat you can't even understand English.
At 10:33 AM,
Jerad said…
Einstein was in the same boat.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH You are such a doofus.
Yes I did and yes I do.
Clearly you don't. All you can do is claim you do. You can't find a mistake in one, single proof that contradicts your BS.
I know it isn't used Jerad as no one can show me any use for it, moron. And you can't even grasp subtraction so shut up about math.
Funny then that you linked to a discussion that supposedly upheld your ideas that references countably infinite sets. And you think no one uses it. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
The fact that you think your kind of set subtraction changes the cardinality proves you haven't got a clue. Go on, show me where your method is used or validated.
You don't, Jeard. You are an asshole moron.
Well go on, find me an example of someone else using your unsupported notion. Go on. I'll wait. You've never been able to do it in the past so I'm not very hopeful.
You are so fucking stupid tat you can't even understand English.
I do understand English and mathematics. And you can't come up with a case of something with zero probability that is is possible. You can't even do it for an infinite set even though the discussion you linked to discusses that very case!! How funny is that?
At 10:41 AM,
Joe G said…
Funny then that you linked to a discussion that supposedly upheld your ideas that references countably infinite sets. And you think no one uses it.
You are either very desperate or very ignorant. I never said that no one uses the concept of countably infinite sets.
The fact that you think your kind of set subtraction changes the cardinality proves you haven't got a clue.
See, you are ignorant of what subtraction entails. You are obviously not cut out for critical thinking or any thinking. All you can do is parrot the party-line.
And you can't come up with a case of something with zero probability that is is possible.
I provided two links that explained it. You even agreed. Are you really that fucking retarded?
How funny is THAT?
Set subtraction proves that two countably infinite sets are not necessarily the same size. Infinity is a journey and jerad was ignorant of that.
At 11:53 AM,
Jerad said…
You are either very desperate or very ignorant. I never said that no one uses the concept of countably infinite sets.
You did, many times. And at least once in this conversation.
See, you are ignorant of what subtraction entails. You are obviously not cut out for critical thinking or any thinking. All you can do is parrot the party-line.
The 'party-line' has been looked at and considered and argued over for over a century. People a lot smarter than you or I have tested it. You come up with some BS that no one else supports, that you can't even beat into any kind of coherent system, and you think every one else is wrong. And you wonder why lots of us are laughing at you.
I provided two links that explained it. You even agreed. Are you really that fucking retarded?
I read it. I understood it. BUT did you? Can you give me a specific example or not? Prove to me you understood what you linked to.
Set subtraction proves that two countably infinite sets are not necessarily the same size. Infinity is a journey and jerad was ignorant of that.
Once again showing your ignorance and inability to understand anything above basic, finite arithmetic.
The reason Cantor initially was disputed was because many people at the time didn't buy what he was saying. At first. Then they thought about it. They tried to tear it down. They couldn't make your scheme work. And neither can you. You can't even compare some of the countably infinite sets which you claim are different sizes. Your system doesn't work. It can't come up with the goods.
At 12:28 PM,
Joe G said…
You did, many times. And at least once in this conversation.
No Jerad. I said that no one uses the concept that the cardinality of all countably infinite sets is the same. As I said, you are either desperate or ignorant. But that is wrong as you are clearly both desperate and ignorant.
The 'party-line' has been looked at and considered and argued over for over a century.
And yet basic set subtraction proves the cardinalities can be different.
I understood it.
Obviously not.
Can you give me a specific example or not?
Use their example, dumbass.
Once again showing your ignorance and inability to understand anything above basic, finite arithmetic.
YOU DID IT, MORON. Infinity is not magic, Jerad. The ... on the end of a sequence say that the pattern observed in the finite goes on forever. The SAME pattern.
They couldn't make your scheme work.
What does that mean, Jerad? Cantor's doesn't "work" as no one uses it.
Mine works for the simple reason it follows the same protocols throughout. I use the same matching for determining if one set is a proper subset of another for determining if they have the same cardinality or not.
My scheme only applies to specific scenarios. Not my fault that you are too dull to grasp that fact.
HOWEVER none of that has anything to do with what was said in those links. Not only that you can't get over the fact t6hat infinity is a journey, I knew and understood that while you wallow in ignorance of it.
At 1:19 PM,
Jerad said…
No Jerad. I said that no one uses the concept that the cardinality of all countably infinite sets is the same. As I said, you are either desperate or ignorant. But that is wrong as you are clearly both desperate and ignorant.
You have said many times in the past that the whole concept of being countably infinite was useless. Anyway, it doesn't matter: you've shown over and over that you can't handle the math.
And yet basic set subtraction proves the cardinalities can be different.
Because basic subtraction isn't good enough for infinities. Like I said: you can't go beyond basic, finite arithmetic.
Use their example, dumbass.
Tell me what that is. I don't think you can. I don't think you have a clue what their argument is. I do. I studied stuff like that.
YOU DID IT, MORON. Infinity is not magic, Jerad. The ... on the end of a sequence say that the pattern observed in the finite goes on forever. The SAME pattern.
Nope. You lose. You really do not get infinities. You're stuck in finite. You've shown that over and over again.
What does that mean, Jerad? Cantor's doesn't "work" as no one uses it.
See, you've once again said that countably infinite is useless. Stop lying about that.
Mine works for the simple reason it follows the same protocols throughout. I use the same matching for determining if one set is a proper subset of another for determining if they have the same cardinality or not.
Too bad you have to change schemes when you get to infinities. That's what you fail to grasp. That's why you don't get it.
My scheme only applies to specific scenarios. Not my fault that you are too dull to grasp that fact.
What specific scenarios?
HOWEVER none of that has anything to do with what was said in those links. Not only that you can't get over the fact t6hat infinity is a journey, I knew and understood that while you wallow in ignorance of it.
I understood what was said in those links. Completely. Let's see if you do. Give me an example of something that upholds your contention based on what's in those links. Go on. I'll wait.
At 8:23 AM,
Joe G said…
You have said many times in the past that the whole concept of being countably infinite was useless.
LIAR
Anyway, it doesn't matter: you've shown over and over that you can't handle the math.
LIAR
Because basic subtraction isn't good enough for infinities.
Of course it is.
Like I said: you can't go beyond basic, finite arithmetic.
You just proved that you don't grasp infinity.
You really do not get infinities.
I understand infinity better than you do.
See, you've once again said that countably infinite is useless.
Moron dickhead. My response was about the cardinality of those sets, asshole. See you are too stupid to follow along.
Too bad you have to change schemes when you get to infinities.
Nope.
I understood what was said in those links.
Obviously not.
At 9:12 AM,
Jerad said…
Anyway, it doesn't matter: you've shown over and over that you can't handle the math.
LIAR
Well, you don't understand proofs which contradict your ideas that's for sure. A proof that has been looked over for decades is not a maybe or a possible. It's a truth. That's how math works. That's why they call their results theorems instead of theories.
Because basic subtraction isn't good enough for infinities.
Of course it is.
Proof again that you don't understand the theorems.
Like I said: you can't go beyond basic, finite arithmetic.
I understand infinity better than you do.
Then find a mistake in Cantor's arguments. Go on.
Too bad you have to change schemes when you get to infinities.
Too bad you're trying to hammer a nail with a pair of nail clippers.
Literally no one on the planet agrees with you about infinities. There is no academic work that supports your view. You can't even defend it.
And now we see that you can't come up with an example of something with zero probability that is not impossible even after linking to a discussion of that very topic. You can bitch and moan and abuse but if you can't even come up with an example of something based on an existing discussion then you clearly are in the wrong league.
At 9:27 AM,
Jerad said…
Cleary your buddy Denyse doesn't understand undergraduate mathematics either.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-is-case-study-in-diffusion-of-knowledge/
She's missed the point, which is clearly stated, that diffusion of knowledge is slower in the ID community than in the evolution community. Too funny.
At 11:16 AM,
Joe G said…
The evolution community is close-minded so knowledge doesn't diffuse through it at all.
At 11:20 AM,
Joe G said…
Well, you don't understand proofs which contradict your ideas that's for sure.
The "proof" is bogus, asshole, just as I have been saying. You are just too stupid to understand anything I have posted.
Then find a mistake in Cantor's arguments.
Already have.
Literally no one on the planet agrees with you about infinities.
Evidence please.
And now we see that you can't come up with an example of something with zero probability that is not impossible even after linking to a discussion of that very topic.
The example on the linked page is good enough, moron. You can even google it but apparently you are too stupid to do that.
At 4:38 PM,
Jerad said…
The evolution community is close-minded so knowledge doesn't diffuse through it at all.
Which is NOT what the abstract says. If you disagree with the research then find a mistake.
The "proof" is bogus, asshole, just as I have been saying. You are just too stupid to understand anything I have posted.
But, you can't point out a mistake in the proof. Or show any support for you ideas. Or develop your ideas into any kind of coherent whole that can deal with problems. The truth is you don't understand the proof.
This is why no one takes you seriously. Even Uncommon Descent banned your Joe account. Didn't they Virgil?
Already have.
No, you did not point out a mistake. You made up some stuff that you couldn't even support or that anyone else supports.
To point out a mistake in a proof you have to point to a specific statement or inference and show why it is incorrect. This you have failed to do. If there's no mistake then the proof stands no matter how much you bitch and moan and complain.
Evidence please.
Find someone who agrees with you. Find some academic work that supports your version of cardinality. You are making ridiculous claims, it's up to you to support them. It's not up to everyone else to prove that you are a crank. Which is obvious anyway.
The example on the linked page is good enough, moron. You can even google it but apparently you are too stupid to do that.
If it's so easy then spell it out. Be specific. Tell us, in your own words, an example of something that has probability zero but is not impossible. I read the arguments, did you?
You claim to understand the mathematics but your statements say otherwise. Now you have to show that you really do 'get it'.
I think you don't really have a clue what the links you posted are saying. You just grabbed them because of the headlines. But you can prove me wrong. Tell us an example of something with zero probability that is not impossible. Go on. We're waiting. Again. While you duck and dodge and (probably) resort to abuse. While you fail to answer another question about your claimed understanding.
At 5:19 PM,
Joe G said…
Which is NOT what the abstract says.
It is what reality says. Evolutionism is the antithesis of knowledge.
But, you can't point out a mistake in the proof.
I am not going over this again. Obviously you have serious issues and should seek help.
No one uses the concept of countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is useless, ie of absolutely no utility. I can deal with that. Obviously you cannot.
At 5:25 PM,
Joe G said…
Tell us an example of something with zero probability that is not impossible.
Pick the same real number between 0 and 1 that we have picked.
At 11:52 PM,
Jerad said…
It is what reality says. Evolutionism is the antithesis of knowledge.
But that's NOT what the abstract of the paper says. If you think the research in the paper is wrong then FIND THE MISTAKE. Just taking pot-shots without pointing out errors means you haven't read the work.
I am not going over this again. Obviously you have serious issues and should seek help.
Of course you don't want to go over it again. Because you CAN NOT find a mistake and you don't want to be reminded of it. Because it shows that your stance is unsupported.
No one uses the concept of countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is useless, ie of absolutely no utility. I can deal with that. Obviously you cannot.
Says someone who doesn't even understand what a proof is. Says someone who knows jack-shit about the mathematics. Says someone who hasn't got a clue whether Cantor's work is used or not. Says someone who is just making up BS.
Pick the same real number between 0 and 1 that we have picked.
What the hell are you talking about? We haven't picked anything!! I said give me an example. Which you haven't done. I don't think you get what's going on at all. Do you know what a real number is? Do you know what a rational number is? Do you know what an integer is?
Is the cardinality of the set of real numbers the same as the cardinality of the set of rational numbers? That comes up in the second linked discussion.
By the way, from the second paper:
"Since the set of rational numbers is countable and E is a subset of the set of rational numbers, E is countable."
Using the concept of all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
At 8:48 AM,
Joe G said…
But that's NOT what the abstract of the paper says.
Itb is what REALITY says, asshole.
What the hell are you talking about?
Are you too stupid to understand what I posted?
We haven't picked anything!!
Then pick one, dumbass.
I said give me an example.
THIS IS THE EXAMPLE, MORON.
"Since the set of rational numbers is countable and E is a subset of the set of rational numbers, E is countable."
Yes, we know. We have never said nor implied otherwise.
Using the concept of all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality
Wrong again, as usual. Being countable doesn't mean it has the same cardinality and they do not say that, asshole. Obviously you don't know jack- shit about mathematics. Heck you are so stupid that you don't understand the ramifications of subtraction.
Look Jerad, I am comfortable with the fact that if we were both given the same mathe test in the same classroom I would come out with a higher grade than you.
At 8:50 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad is so fucking stupid:
Tell us an example of something with zero probability that is not impossible.
Pick the same real number between 0 and 1 that we have picked.
What I posted is an EXAMPLE of something tat has a zero probability but is not impossible. That is there is a zero probability that Jerad will pick the same number as wee did but there is still a possibility that he will.
But seeing that Jerad is an ignorant turd bucket he couldn't understand it. But then again Jerad is ignorant of the fact that infinity is a journey.
At 9:47 AM,
Jerad said…
Itb is what REALITY says, asshole.
That's your opinion. Where's the research to back that up? The paper Denyse linked to suggests you're wrong.
Then pick one, dumbass.
You phrased it all really badly I see now. And I don't know who 'we' is. Am I talking to more than one person?
Yes, we know. We have never said nor implied otherwise.
Who is 'we'?
Wrong again, as usual. Being countable doesn't mean it has the same cardinality and they do not say that, asshole. Obviously you don't know jack- shit about mathematics. Heck you are so stupid that you don't understand the ramifications of subtraction.
Proofs and theorem say they do have the same cardinality. And that fact is used in this discussion.
Look Jerad, I am comfortable with the fact that if we were both given the same mathe test in the same classroom I would come out with a higher grade than you.
Find an online one and we'll see. Make sure it's Calculus level.
Pick the same real number between 0 and 1 that we have picked.
We. . . . Sigh.
What I posted is an EXAMPLE of something tat has a zero probability but is not impossible. That is there is a zero probability that Jerad will pick the same number as wee did but there is still a possibility that he will.
Okay, here's what I think you're saying:
You (or 'we') will pick a real number between 0 and 1. Then I pick a real number between 0 and 1. The probability of me picking the same number as you/we is effectively 0. But it is possible. Correct?
Okay, some questions:
How will you pick your number? Let's say you're going to write it down before I pick to make sure you don't change it. That's fair. How will you write it down? As a decimal number? To how many places? I need to know this so that I use the same format when I write my number down. So when we compare them it's a fair test.
At 9:55 AM,
Joe G said…
That's your opinion
It's a fact.
You phrased it all really badly I see now
That's your opinion.
Proofs and theorem say they do have the same cardinality
And set subtraction proves they are wrong.
How will you pick your number?
It doesn't matter, asshole.
Let's say you're going to write it down before I pick to make sure you don't change it.
Let's say that you are a stalling asshole.
I need to know this so that I use the same format when I write my number down.
No, Jerad, that is all part of the example.
At 9:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Look Jerad, I am comfortable with the fact that if we were both given the same mathe test in the same classroom I would come out with a higher grade than you.
Find an online one and we'll see.
You must be a retard, Jerad. Same test SAME CLASSROOM- dumbass.
At 10:01 AM,
Jerad said…
And set subtraction proves they are wrong.
Something which you cannot find any academic support for. So we can discount it.
It doesn't matter, asshole.
I'm trying to prove a point.
Let's say you're going to write it down before I pick to make sure you don't change it.
Let's say that you are a stalling asshole.
I don't see what's wrong with making sure each participant writes down their number in a common format to facilitate comparison. If you said 17/56 and I said 289/3136 how would you decide if they were or were not the same?
No, Jerad, that is all part of the example.
How would you compare the two numbers to see if they were or weren't the same? Is the cube root of 0.039304 the same as 0.33?
At 10:02 AM,
Jerad said…
You must be a retard, Jerad. Same test SAME CLASSROOM- dumbass.
Fine. I'll look for an online one we can both take and compare scores.
At 10:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, you are one ignorant sob- SAME CLASSROOM. I do not trust you.
At 10:18 AM,
Joe G said…
Something which you cannot find any academic support for.
YOU DID IT, moron.
I'm trying to prove a point.
And you proved that you are an asshole. Nice job.
If you said 17/56 and I said 289/3136 how would you decide if they were or were not the same?
Thank you for proving that you don't know jack-shit about mathematics.
At 10:20 AM,
Jerad said…
Fine. I'll look for an online one we can both take and compare scores.
Here we can both take an online SATs prep test.
http://www.math-tests.com/sat-math-test.html
A simple screen shot of the results should be sufficient proof of scores.
At 10:23 AM,
Joe G said…
What part of "the same classroom" are you too stupid to understand?
At 10:23 AM,
Jerad said…
Something which you cannot find any academic support for.
YOU DID IT, moron.
Wow, that just doesn't make any sense at all.
And you proved that you are an asshole. Nice job.
My contention is that the way you write down and compare the values picked (say you only went out to 10 places of accuracy) might mean that the probability of getting the same thing is not zero. Very small but not zero. But you were too afraid to answer my questions so I didn't get to that.
Thank you for proving that you don't know jack-shit about mathematics.
I know how to answer my questions. Do you? I'm thinking not since you are getting abusive instead of defending your position. But that's how these discussions normally go.
At 10:26 AM,
Jerad said…
What part of "the same classroom" are you too stupid to understand?
Are you afraid to take an online test? Do you think I'll cheat? I could say the same about you. I'll try one and see if they report the time taken as well. Someone who had to stop and look things up would have a much greater time. OR I'll find one that has a time limit. How about that?
At 10:31 AM,
Jerad said…
Here's an online Calculus readiness test.
http://mdtp.ucsd.edu/test_new/?show_instructions=3
I'll try it and see how the results are recorded. If it's secure and especially if it's timed then that seems like a fair test.
At 10:34 AM,
Jerad said…
Here's one from UC Berkeley.
https://math.berkeley.edu/courses/choosing/placement-exam
I'm sure one of these would be quite applicable.
Unless you're afraid. Are you afraid Virgil? You're starting to sound like you are.
At 10:38 AM,
Jerad said…
How about we both try something like this:
http://www.calculus.org/exams/mt1/mt1.html
taking two hours to see who gets the most correct? Pretty cool problems eh? And thats just from a 100-level Calculus course. Just think what a 300 or 400-level exam is like. Or a graduate level on.
You're not afraid to try that are you Virgil?
At 10:48 AM,
Jerad said…
We could just find some examples of . . . . say, ODEs and see who can come up with a solution that works. Something like:
dy/dx = 7x^2y^5
That's good for me.
How about computing the pressure against a circular porthole, 12-inches in diameter where the top of the porthole is 30-feet below the surface?
If you're too afraid just say so.
At 11:51 AM,
Jerad said…
How about a problem like this:
Use cylindrical shells to find the volume f the solid generated when the region enclosed between y = sqrt(x), x =1, x = 4 and the x-axis is revolved about the y-axis.
I got that from Howard Anton's textbook, Calculus, the 5th edition. Which I bought on ebay.
I still think an online test is good but I'm happy to come up with some typical 1st-year Calculus problems and let you change the numbers a bit. Then have us both work on them.
I enjoy working with sequences and series. But it's best to be able to do some proper math typesetting for readability.
Then there's always trig . . . stuff like
2cos(3x-pi/2) = 1, solve for -360 < x < 360 degrees. That's pre-calculus stuff.
I've got the classic book on Set Theory by Kaplansky. There's some good problems in there. Oh wait, that wouldn't work because you don't understand the theorems establishing Cantor's work. Oh well.
I've got Niven and Zuckerman's Number Theory if you fancy that. I like number theory but it does get a bit complicated pretty quickly. I really should get a good book on Analytic Number theory.
I've got a very good book on 1st and 2nd order DEs. Lots of good examples there.
Actually, I do have an EXCELLENT Linear Algebra textbook. Fancy finding some eigenvalues or eigenvectors? I don't think that stuff is too difficult. How about solving a system of 4 linear equations and 4 unknowns?
At 12:05 PM,
Jerad said…
I just tried the SATs online test. There were 10 questions, multiple-choice, no 'none of these' or 'all of these' answers. It took me about 15 minutes and I got 100% I took a screenshot and put it in my public dropbox folder:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1799495/Untitled.tiff
See, easy peasy.
If we agreed, online, to start at a certain time and posted our results to dropbox capturing the whole screen with the time and date displayed that should be pretty good I think.
Unless you're afraid of course.
At 3:19 PM,
Jerad said…
Okay, bad news. The SATS site recycles the same test. So that's not a good test as I've already done it and got 100%.
But I'm confident it's possible to find an online test that is fair and secure and varied. If you're not afraid to try.
You're not afraid are you Virgil? You're not saying I'm cleverer than you and will be able to figure out a way to cheat that you won't be able to detect or control for? You're not saying that are you? Just checking.
At 3:42 PM,
Joe G said…
Wow, that just doesn't make any sense at all.
Jerad, YOU subtracted two infinite sets and the result was an infinite set. Stop being such a little impish dickhead.
Let set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
Let set B = {2,4,6,8,10,...}
Let set C = {1,3,5,7,9,...}
A - B = C and C > 0.
My contention is that the way you write down and compare the values picked (say you only went out to 10 places of accuracy) might mean that the probability of getting the same thing is not zero.
So you didn't understand any of the articles I linked to. Got it.
Are you afraid to take an online test?
No
Do you think I'll cheat?
Absolutely.
I could say the same about you.
Absolutely.
Same room, same test, same time.
At 5:04 PM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, YOU subtracted two infinite sets and the result was an infinite set. Stop being such a little impish dickhead.
Let set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
Let set B = {2,4,6,8,10,...}
Let set C = {1,3,5,7,9,...}
A - B = C and C > 0.
C > 0 makes no sense. C is a set. Are you saying the cardinality of C> 0.
Anyway, the truth is the cardinality of A and B and C is the same. They are all countably infinite sets. The all have cardinality aleph-0.
So you didn't understand any of the articles I linked to. Got it.
Oh I did. And I am trying to tease out some more subtle aspects of the discussion. Which you seem determined to avoid.
Are you afraid to take an online test?
No
Good. Then help me find one.
Do you think I'll cheat?
Absolutely.
That's why we need to agree on a procedure which minimalizes that possibility. Agreed?
Same room, same test, same time.
When can you fly to England?
At 5:04 PM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, YOU subtracted two infinite sets and the result was an infinite set. Stop being such a little impish dickhead.
Let set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
Let set B = {2,4,6,8,10,...}
Let set C = {1,3,5,7,9,...}
A - B = C and C > 0.
C > 0 makes no sense. C is a set. Are you saying the cardinality of C> 0.
Anyway, the truth is the cardinality of A and B and C is the same. They are all countably infinite sets. The all have cardinality aleph-0.
So you didn't understand any of the articles I linked to. Got it.
Oh I did. And I am trying to tease out some more subtle aspects of the discussion. Which you seem determined to avoid.
Are you afraid to take an online test?
No
Good. Then help me find one.
Do you think I'll cheat?
Absolutely.
That's why we need to agree on a procedure which minimalizes that possibility. Agreed?
Same room, same test, same time.
When can you fly to England?
At 6:46 PM,
Joe G said…
C > 0 makes no sense.
If A and B had the same number of elements, ie the same cardinality, then A - C would = 0
Anyway, the truth is the cardinality of A and B and C is the same.
Not according to basic set subtraction.
Oh I did. And I am trying to tease out some more subtle aspects of the discussion.
Find someone who gives a shit and have it out with them.
At 1:00 AM,
Jerad said…
If A and B had the same number of elements, ie the same cardinality, then A - C would = 0
Like I said, you never have grasped the arithmetic of infinite sets.
Not according to basic set subtraction.
Which has been proven to be inadequate for infinite sets. Despite your whining and protesting. You don't get it. Everyone else has figured it out and moved on. Poor little Virgil is waaaaaaaaaay back in the past 'cause he can't think past finite stuff.
Find someone who gives a shit and have it out with them.
Right, so you don't really want to see if you can beat me in a mathematical test/challenge. Despite your bluffing and bluster. Fine. Is it because you're scared then Virgil? Did you figure out you don't actually know that much mathematics? And I only brought up undergraduate, first and second year stuff. Did you finally realise that there's a whole bunch of stuff you actually know shit about?
Perhaps, since you chickened out, you'll stop pretending that you know better than other people. But I doubt it. I'm also sure that you'll run away the next time someone offers to compete with you. Because you are a coward and a bully.
At 9:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Like I said, you never have grasped the arithmetic of infinite sets.
I grasp it just fine. You and the others are fucked up when it comes to infinity.
Which has been proven to be inadequate for infinite sets.
Liar.
Right, so you don't really want to see if you can beat me in a mathematical test/challenge.
I know that I could.
Seeing that you are too chicken to sit in the same room with me I will never be able to prove it.
At 9:51 AM,
Jerad said…
I grasp it just fine. You and the others are fucked up when it comes to infinity.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHA Millions of other people are 'fucked up' but Virgil all on his own figured it out. But he can't find any support for his BS. But he knows he's right because . . . because . . . because he's always right and everyone else is always wrong!! Of course, it's so easy when you look at it that way.
Liar.
Virgil can't understand theorems and proofs. We knew that already.
I know that I could.
Okay, tell me what the volume is of the solid generated by rotating the function 1/x from x = 1 on up about the x-axis. Go on.
Or figure out what the derivative of 3^(4x-7) is.
Or tell me the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + . . . is.
How about the sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + 1/6 + . . .
Or find the cross-product of 3i + 4j and -4i - 3j
Here's a dead easy one: find x so that x^2 + 4 = 0
Seeing that you are too chicken to sit in the same room with me I will never be able to prove it.
Not necessary. Too expensive. IF you were serious, which you clearly aren't, you would agree to an online situation. But since you know i'm not going to shell out hundreds of dollars you think you'll be able to say that I bailed. When in reality it's you who have run away from showing what you (don't) know.
I've just given you some straight-forward problems from a first year calculus course. They're really easy. Why don't you show me you can at least do those.
Or chicken out, again.
You're call.
At 10:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, You are too stupid to understand the implications of set subtraction. You are ignorant of the fact that infinity is a journey.
And yes it is necessary to be in the same room as you are a known liar and loser.
At 10:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, YOU subtracted two infinite sets and the result was an infinite set. Stop being such a little impish dickhead.
Let set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,...}
Let set B = {2,4,6,8,10,...}
Let set C = {1,3,5,7,9,...}
A - B = C and C > 0.
If A and B had the same number of elements, ie the same cardinality, then A - C would = 0
Find the mistake, Jerad.
At 10:18 AM,
Jerad said…
Jerad, You are too stupid to understand the implications of set subtraction. You are ignorant of the fact that infinity is a journey.
Virgil doesn't understand the theorems that prove him wrong.
And yes it is necessary to be in the same room as you are a known liar and loser.
You are a coward Virgil. You've refused to do a single elementary problem I've proposed. You've refused to consider a variety of online suggestions I'm made. Tell your wife you need some chicken feed for dinner.
Jerad, YOU subtracted two infinite sets and the result was an infinite set. Stop being such a little impish dickhead.
Absolutely. And they're all the same size because when you line them up, matched element for element, nothing gets left out. They must be the same size then, just like with finite sets.
Find the mistake, Jerad.
I just did. If the sets were different sizes then you couldn't match them up, 1 to 1, without having some element(s) unmatched.
Could you? You've never been able to find something that wasn't matched up which is why it works.
And it works for finite and infinite sets.
So, unless you can find something that doesn't get matched up, that gets left out . . . you're wrong.
At 10:43 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad is so stupid that he just refuses to understand the implications of set subtraction. And he also refuses to grasp the fact that infinity is a journey. Further Jerad thinks that a contrived matching scheme actually means something.
Jerad is too stupid to be able to think for himself.
Using set subtraction I have proven that there are an infinite unmatched numbers.
At 11:02 AM,
Jerad said…
Jerad is so stupid that he just refuses to understand the implications of set subtraction.
Name me a mathematician or physicist who thinks my methodology is wrong. Go on. Find someone.
And he also refuses to grasp the fact that infinity is a journey
Whatever that means. It'd be a mighty long trip for sure.
Further Jerad thinks that a contrived matching scheme actually means something.
Virgil, if you can't find an unmatched element in either set then the sets must be the same size. Works with finite and infinite sets.
If I'm wrong then you should be able to find an unmatched element. Which you have failed to do.
Now you can bitch and moan and bluff and abuse but unless you can prove that a 1 to 1 matching between A and B or A and C or B and C leaves something unmatched then you're just being dense. You can use terms like 'contrived' which has no mathematical bearing on this case but it doesn't change anything.
Jerad is too stupid to be able to think for himself.
I prefer being correct.
Using set subtraction I have proven that there are an infinite unmatched numbers.
Your matching is not 1 to 1. Mine is. Mine shows the sets are the same size. Because no element goes unmatched.
In fact, what you have shown with A - B = C is that a countably infinite set, A, has countably infinite proper subsets, B and C. And countably infinite sets are all the same size.
Do you think Einstein was wrong as well because he said the speed of light was always the same no matter what velocity the observer is going with respect to the source of the light?
Until you can find someone who agrees with you OR find an unmatched element in my 1 to 1 matching then you're shit out of luck. But no one agrees with you, no one references your 'method' in any paper or article or work and my mapping lines up the elements 1 to 1 so none is left out.
At 4:37 PM,
Jerad said…
Let's just take stock here:
You've proposed an alternative to Georg Cantor's theory of infinites. Your proposal has zero academic support, is used by no one and you, yourself, can't even answer some question about it.
Additionally you have failed to find fault with any of the theorems which are in contradiction to your scheme.
You have proposed a mathematical challenge between yourself and me but have refused to accept anything other than a physical face-to-face meeting despite my willingness to pursue other, less expensive alternatives.
You have utterly failed to even attempt to address any of the undergraduate mathematical problems I have mentioned.
You have continued to be abusive and rude even when attempts are made to address your questions and objections.
I know what you are going to say: we're all wrong and dickheads and you alone know the truth.
But, to be honest . . . would any reasonable person hold that view considering your behaviour and innumeracy?
You may well continue to assume you are correct and everyone else is a moron. But take a look at the published mathematical work, at popular sites like Wikipedia, at textbooks, journals, etc. All of which disagree with you. Any sensible person would at least consider the possibility that they are wrong.
What if you are wrong? How would you move on from there?
At 11:32 PM,
Joe G said…
Using set subtraction I have proven that there are an infinite unmatched numbers.
Your matching is not 1 to 1.
My matching is derived. Your matching is contrived. If the sets had the same number of elements set subtraction would confirm it.
You've proposed an alternative to Georg Cantor's theory of infinites.
His is useless- it doesn't have any utility. No one uses it for anything.
Also you spew about theorems when my methodology is attacking them. You can't just say "the theorems" when they are the very thing being debated. You are a moron.
Cantor isn't God. He is fallible. He was ignorant of infinity as he was obviously unaware that it is a journey. And you are also proudly ignorant of that fact.
At 2:28 AM,
Jerad said…
My matching is derived. Your matching is contrived. If the sets had the same number of elements set subtraction would confirm it.
Show me where "derived" and "contrived" are defined in terms of set theory and where is says one is preferred. Matching proves they DO have the same number of elements.
His is useless- it doesn't have any utility. No one uses it for anything.
It's used all the time. But since you actually know jack-shit about real set theory . . . .
Also you spew about theorems when my methodology is attacking them. You can't just say "the theorems" when they are the very thing being debated. You are a moron.
Theorems have been proved. The proofs have been looked over by lots and lots of mathematicians. They are true. Your denials prove how little you understand mathematics and your inability to find fault with the proofs.
Cantor isn't God. He is fallible. He was ignorant of infinity as he was obviously unaware that it is a journey. And you are also proudly ignorant of that fact.
Cantor's work was highly controversial and was looked at and argued about, it wasn't initially just accepted. Eventually the mathematics community realised he was right.
Theorems are not up to debate unless you can find a fault with the proofs. And you have never, ever been able to do that. Your denials are just BS to avoid admitting you're wrong.
But by all means keep denying; many people love laughing and pointing at the IDiot. You're adding fuel to their fire. And embarrassing people like Dr Dembski.
At 9:46 AM,
Joe G said…
Show me where "derived" and "contrived" are defined in terms of set theory and where is says one is preferred.
Tell me why that is a requirement.
It's used all the time.
Liar. No one uses the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a bluffing loser.
Theorems are not up to debate unless you can find a fault with the proofs.
I did, fuckface. Set subtraction proves the proof is wrong.
Using set subtraction I have proven that there are an infinite unmatched numbers.
But by all means keep ignoring set subtraction. I love laughing at morons who cannot think for themselves.
At 9:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Matching proves they DO have the same number of elements.
And yet subtraction proves they do not. Go figure.
At 9:56 AM,
Jerad said…
Show me where "derived" and "contrived" are defined in terms of set theory and where is says one is preferred.
Tell me why that is a requirement.
It's not a requirement unless you want people to take you seriously. But since you can't justify your use of the term regarding set theory mappings then your objection is unfounded and disregarded.
Liar. No one uses the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a bluffing loser.
Well, since you aren't a mathematician or a teacher of mathematics it doesn't matter that you are ignorant of what is and isn't used. And your abusive manner shows you haven't actually got any results or publications or data to back up your claims.
I did, fuckface. Set subtraction proves the proof is wrong.
Nope. You did not find a single statement in a proof that was incorrect. You lose. And your 'method' is disregarded.
Using set subtraction I have proven that there are an infinite unmatched numbers.
You used an non-1 to 1 mapping. So you got a bogus result.
But by all means keep ignoring set subtraction. I love laughing at morons who cannot think for themselves.
Well, again, since no one takes you seriously . . . who cares? Enjoy your ignorance and BS method. You're never going to use it for anything anyway.
At 9:58 AM,
Jerad said…
Matching proves they DO have the same number of elements.
And yet subtraction proves they do not. Go figure.
I figure you don't know shit about real set theory. But it doesn't matter since no one who does know set theory is going to take you seriously.
At 11:02 AM,
Joe G said…
I figure you don't know shit about real set theory
Whatever, Jerad. I know that you are unable to think for yourself.
It's not a requirement unless you want people to take you seriously.
Wow, what a devastating refutation- not.
Well, since you aren't a mathematician or a teacher of mathematics it doesn't matter that you are ignorant of what is and isn't used.
Wow, another devastating refutation! People see that you cannot defend your claims, Jerad.
You're never going to use it for anything anyway.
No one uses Cantor's claim of the same cardinality for countably infinite sets for anything, dumbass.
At 11:14 AM,
Jerad said…
Whatever, Jerad. I know that you are unable to think for yourself.
Who cares what you think anyway. You're never going to teach mathematics, you're never going to do any mathematical research, you're never going to publish any mathematics. Your method is bogus, you can't even defend it. And you can't understand theorems or their proofs.
It's not a requirement unless you want people to take you seriously.
Wow, what a devastating refutation- not.
I'm trying to refute you with that statement. I'm just pointing one of the many reasons people think your mathematical ideas are a joke.
Wow, another devastating refutation! People see that you cannot defend your claims, Jerad.
Not my fault you can't read a real book on set theory or understand set theoretical results when they are handed to you. Like I said, since no one is ever going to take you seriously . . . who cares?
No one uses Cantor's claim of the same cardinality for countably infinite sets for anything, dumbass.
Enjoy your ignorance while a whole lot of people laugh and point.
At 11:38 AM,
Joe G said…
Who cares what you think anyway.
Who cares what YOU think?
Your method is bogus, you can't even defend it.
I defended it. You choked.
I'm just pointing one of the many reasons people think your mathematical ideas are a joke.
I bet more people agree with me than you.
No one uses Cantor's claim of the same cardinality for countably infinite sets for anything, dumbass.
And it is very telling that Jerad cannot refute that even though he has had over a year to do so.
You are a pathetic piece of shit, Jerad. That is why you were booted from UD.
Post a Comment
<< Home