Moron Parents Ruining Education
-
I have had enough of the stupid shit said about Common Core. Now we have asswipes all up in arms about a basic math problem.
Common core requires elementary students to understand the proper mathematical definition of terms. For example with simple multiplication A x B = C, A is the multiplier and B is the multiplicand.
The issue? A student was marked wrong because they wrote 5x3 as being the equivalent of 5+5+5. The correct way to write is 3+3+3+3+3. The multiplicand is the number being multiplied.
Parents are up in arms because Common Core requires that students understand the proper use of mathematical terms.
I have had enough of the stupid shit said about Common Core. Now we have asswipes all up in arms about a basic math problem.
Common core requires elementary students to understand the proper mathematical definition of terms. For example with simple multiplication A x B = C, A is the multiplier and B is the multiplicand.
The issue? A student was marked wrong because they wrote 5x3 as being the equivalent of 5+5+5. The correct way to write is 3+3+3+3+3. The multiplicand is the number being multiplied.
Parents are up in arms because Common Core requires that students understand the proper use of mathematical terms.
posted by Joe G @ 7:09 PM
165 Comments:
At 3:27 AM,
Unknown said…
But multiplication is commutative so 5 x 3 = 3 x 5
At 3:58 AM,
Unknown said…
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/multiplicand.html
At 3:59 AM,
Unknown said…
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58567.html
At 6:09 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes, multiplication is commutative. Nice of you to ignore the point.
At 6:10 AM,
Joe G said…
https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/multiplicand.html
That is what I said. Did you have a point?
At 6:12 AM,
Joe G said…
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58567.html
If a teacher teaches the class that the first number is the multiplier and the second the multiplicand that sets up the test and the proper answer, Jerad.
At 6:39 AM,
Unknown said…
BUT multiplication being commutative is a more important concept, switching the order of the factors doesn't change the numerical result AND most teachers don't use the term multiplicand anymore and haven't for years so most people don't know it's strict definition. And, surprisingly enough, good mathematics and engineering is still being done.
It's a tempest in a teapot. The kid knew both versions gave the same numerical answer, that's the important thing.
At 6:42 AM,
Joe G said…
Umm, the terms are used in Common Core. And it is being taught the way I said.
Your ignorance means nothing here, Jerad.
At 6:48 AM,
Unknown said…
Umm, the terms are used in Common Core. And it is being taught the way I said.
Your ignorance means nothing here, Jerad.
I have no doubt the terms are in Common Core and I have no doubt it is being taught that way. I just think it's a worthless topic to bring up. Emphasise problem solving skills NOT vocabulary.
At 6:49 AM,
Joe G said…
They want the kids to understand mathematical terms, Jerad. Only an asshole would think that is a bad thing.
At 7:06 AM,
Unknown said…
They want the kids to understand mathematical terms, Jerad. Only an asshole would think that is a bad thing.
There are lots of mathematical terms which kids don't need to know and I'd rather spend time building problem solving skills than focusing on vocabulary. Calling both values factors is simpler AND it emphasises the fact that they both divide the result evenly. So that's a better way of getting the important point across. Being too picky about terms most people don't use will just put kids off from wanting to do math, it's putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the path. Make sure you get the core concepts down and introduce specialised vocabulary only when you need to. No one needs to know the term 'multiplicand'.
Do you have separate words for the terms in 3 + 5 ? No because, like multiplication, addition is commutative. The situation is different in subtraction and devision because those operations are NOT commutative so the order matters. Then it IS important to be specific about which value comes first in the expression. But not for multiplication and addition. Vector dot products are commutative but vector cross products are not so the same criteria applies. When you study groups, rings and fields you have to be very specific which operations are commutative and which aren't.
At 8:32 AM,
Joe G said…
There are lots of mathematical terms which kids don't need to know and I'd rather spend time building problem solving skills than focusing on vocabulary.
LoL! The terminology gets to the problem solving. Ya see it helps to know what you are multiplying so you can understand what you are solving.
Calling both values factors
They do call them both factors. One factor is the multiplier and the other factor is the thing being multiplied.
"I need 20 copies of this paper"- by your logic the student just gives her the number 20 and that is it.
Moron
At 8:40 AM,
Joe G said…
If you order 5 packages with 3 lbs of oranges and you get 3 packages with 5 lbs of oranges, did you get what you ordered?
At 12:54 PM,
Unknown said…
LoL! The terminology gets to the problem solving. Ya see it helps to know what you are multiplying so you can understand what you are solving.
You don't need that terminology. For an applied problem you do need to keep track of the units however.
They do call them both factors. One factor is the multiplier and the other factor is the thing being multiplied.
"I need 20 copies of this paper"- by your logic the student just gives her the number 20 and that is it.
Aside from the meaning being clear in context you do have to keep track of the 'units' involved. In this case number of copies of a given paper.
If you order 5 packages with 3 lbs of oranges and you get 3 packages with 5 lbs of oranges, did you get what you ordered?
You get 15 lbs of oranges either way. Assuming what you're really saying is:
5 packages with three lbs of oranges each AND 3 packages with 5 lbs of oranges each.
Your wording is a bit ambiguous. If you meant something else then you need to be more precise to avoid misunderstanding.
When you teach mathematics you have to be very careful to be clear what you are asking and to make sure there is no confusion about what you're looking for.
5 packages with 3 lbs of oranges total compared to 3 packages with 5 lbs of oranges total is NOT a multiplication problem so there's no multiplicand.
At 1:28 PM,
Joe G said…
Wow, just wow. Common Core requires teaching the proper mathematical terminology. And that means understanding which number is the multiplier and which number is the multiplicand. That means 5x3 has to be written out as 3+3+3+3+3 or else it is incorrect. Period. end of story.
At 3:53 PM,
Unknown said…
Wow, just wow. Common Core requires teaching the proper mathematical terminology. And that means understanding which number is the multiplier and which number is the multiplicand. That means 5x3 has to be written out as 3+3+3+3+3 or else it is incorrect. Period. end of story.
Yes, that is what the mandated requirement says. But, is that an important point that needs to be enforced? Don't want to just be a thrall to the rules eh?
Anyway, we can choose to disagree. shall we just leave it at that then?
At 6:19 PM,
Joe G said…
But, is that an important point that needs to be enforced?
If the lesson is taught and not learned the teacher should just ignore that? Really?
Why grade kids at all, then? Just teach them and don't test to see if they received any of it. Or you can test them just don't correct them if they are wrong.
BTW the point of the post is the parents who are bitching about this issue are totally ignorant of the terminology.
5 groups of 3 people and each group wants a separate table. Jerad thinks it is OK to show those 15 people to 3 tables that can seat 5 people.
At 11:10 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What about 10001 x 3. care to expand that?
At 2:52 AM,
Unknown said…
If the lesson is taught and not learned the teacher should just ignore that? Really?
What? I'm just saying you don't need to teach the term multiplicand.
Why grade kids at all, then? Just teach them and don't test to see if they received any of it. Or you can test them just don't correct them if they are wrong.
What? You're way over reacting.
BTW the point of the post is the parents who are bitching about this issue are totally ignorant of the terminology.
Yes, and some kid got marked down when he used the fact that multiplication is commutative and 5+5+5 = 3+3+3+3+3
5 groups of 3 people and each group wants a separate table. Jerad thinks it is OK to show those 15 people to 3 tables that can seat 5 people.
That's not what I'm saying at all!! I tell you what, just forget it. You're just way over reacting.
At 10:34 AM,
Joe G said…
I'm just saying you don't need to teach the term multiplicand.
Thankfully you don't teach in the USA.
Yes, and some kid got marked down when he used the fact that multiplication is commutative and 5+5+5 = 3+3+3+3+3
Wrong. The kid was marked wrong because he didn't understand the difference between the multiplier and the multiplicand. A lesson that was taught in class.
That's not what I'm saying at all!!
Of course it as multiplication is commutative.
At 10:36 AM,
Joe G said…
What about 10001 x 3. care to expand that?
Was that part of the third grade test? If not then why do you bring it up? Or are you also ignorant of proper mathematical terminology?
At 2:27 PM,
Unknown said…
Thankfully you don't teach in the USA.
I taught at a University in America and three different community colleges and we never taught the term 'multiplicand'. Nor is it taught in England.
I have an MS in mathematics from an American University and the term was never used in my recollection.
That's ALL I'm saying, it's not a necessary concept.
Wrong. The kid was marked wrong because he didn't understand the difference between the multiplier and the multiplicand. A lesson that was taught in class.
A lesson I'm saying was a waste of time AND the kid got the more important point that multiplication is commutative.
Of course it as multiplication is commutative.
15 people wanting to be sat in groups of 3 is NOT a multiplication problem!
At 3:25 PM,
Joe G said…
I was taught the difference back in the 1960s. I understand that it makes a difference between the multiplier and what is being multiplied. The table example is a good illustration.
15 people wanting to be sat in groups of 3 is NOT a multiplication problem!
That is a division problem. But that isn't what I said.
5 groups of 3 people and each group wants a separate table. Jerad thinks it is OK to show those 15 people to 3 tables that can seat 5 people.
You are seating 15 people so it obviously doesn't matter, according to you.
In the bags of oranges example if you want 5 three pound bags and get 3 five pound bags you may not be able to properly split them up to get what you asked for.
At 3:51 PM,
William Spearshake said…
Jerad, why are you trying to discuss basic math with a person who still insists that wavelength = frequency? Something that can be proven wrong with basic math (Algebra).
At 4:15 PM,
Joe G said…
William, even third graders understand what a one-to-one correlation means. They can even watch an oscilloscope and see the wavelength change in direct correlation with a change of frequency. They see that wavelength and frequency are just different representations of the same wave.
Just think, in three years you should be in third grade so you can start learning this stuff.
At 4:43 PM,
William Spearshake said…
So, according to Joe, if two things are correlated to each other, they are equal. Good luck with that.
At 6:20 PM,
Joe G said…
So, according to Joe, if two things are correlated to each other, they are equal.
Only as asshole would jump to that conclusion based on what I said. Thank you.
At 9:52 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Don't forget Cantor, cardinality and Joe's search for the largest number!
At 2:48 AM,
William Spearshake said…
"Only as asshole would jump to that conclusion based on what I said. Thank you."
You said that wavelength = frequency. And when called on it you said they were equal because there was a one to one correlation. The only way that someone would not draw the conclusion that you think correlated things are equal is if you would simply admit that you made a mistake when you said that wavelength = frequency.
At 3:25 AM,
Unknown said…
You are seating 15 people so it obviously doesn't matter, according to you.
Sigh, of course it matters if that's what the people want. BUT you don't need to know the term 'multiplicand' to 'solve' the issue.
In the bags of oranges example if you want 5 three pound bags and get 3 five pound bags you may not be able to properly split them up to get what you asked for.
Of course, but you don't need to know the term multiplicand to solve the problem.
William, even third graders understand what a one-to-one correlation means.
Like the one between the positive integers and the positive even integers. :-)
At 7:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Sigh, of course it matters if that's what the people want. BUT you don't need to know the term 'multiplicand' to 'solve' the issue.
You need to know what is being multiplied.
Of course, but you don't need to know the term multiplicand to solve the problem.
You need to know what is being multiplied.
At 7:35 AM,
Joe G said…
Don't forget Cantor, cardinality
Yes, Richie is ignorant of those, also.
At 7:35 AM,
Joe G said…
William, even third graders understand what a one-to-one correlation means. They can even watch an oscilloscope and see the wavelength change in direct correlation with a change of frequency. They see that wavelength and frequency are just different representations of the same wave.
At 7:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Like the one between the positive integers and the positive even integers.
Are they different representations of the same thing? Or are you just an asshole?
At 7:47 AM,
Joe G said…
Let A = the set of all positive integers
Let B = the set of all positive odd integers
Let C = the set of all positive even integers
A - B = C; C > 0; Obviously the cardinalities of A and B are not equal
At 8:52 AM,
Unknown said…
Are they different representations of the same thing? Or are you just an asshole?
Nope but the positive integers and the positive even integers have the same cardinality because there is a one-to-one correlation/mapping/function between them.
Let A = the set of all positive integers
Let B = the set of all positive odd integers
Let C = the set of all positive even integers
A - B = C; C > 0; Obviously the cardinalities of A and B are not equal
And I showed you a theorem (which you clearly didn't understand) that said that countably infinite sets will have countably infinite subset snd that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. And I explained that the idea was very controversial in its day which was the late 19th century.
But hey, if you want to be a mathematics denier it's your call.
At 9:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Nope but the positive integers and the positive even integers have the same cardinality because there is a one-to-one correlation/mapping/function between them.
That is not true as I can correlate all the even positive integers from each set.
And I showed you a theorem (which you clearly didn't understand) that said that countably infinite sets will have countably infinite subset snd that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.
Yes, like a moron you keep repeating the very thing I am debating as if that will change my mind. And you keep ignoring reality.
But hey, if you want to be a mathematics denier it's your call.
You are the one denying basic mathematics, moron. If you can't understand the implications of subtraction and that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence because TWO numbers from one set can correspond to one number of the other, then you are too stupid to have this discussion.
At 9:18 AM,
Joe G said…
A={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,...}
B={2,4,6,8...}
Set A's 1,2 correlate with set B's 2; Set A's 2,4 correlate with set B's 4
At 9:38 AM,
Unknown said…
That is not true as I can correlate all the even positive integers from each set.
Remember, we're talking about the fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence which establishes that the sets have the same cardinality.
Yes, like a moron you keep repeating the very thing I am debating as if that will change my mind. And you keep ignoring reality.
When there's a theorem addressing the issue and you think it's wrong then it's up to you to find a mistake in the proof. And remember, this stuff has been looked over and verified by thousands and thousands of mathematicians already.
You are the one denying basic mathematics, moron. If you can't understand the implications of subtraction and that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence because TWO numbers from one set can correspond to one number of the other, then you are too stupid to have this discussion.
Infinite cardinal numbers don't work the same which is why you have to use different methods.
A={1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,...}
B={2,4,6,8...}
Set A's 1,2 correlate with set B's 2; Set A's 2,4 correlate with set B's 4
So? That's not a one-to-one correspondence. But there is a one-to-one correspondence (a lot of them actually) and as long as there's one that establishes that every member of one set is uniquely matched with an element of the other set (and vice versa) and that can only happen if the sets have the same cardinality.
It doesn't matter how many non-one-to-one mappings you can find, that doesn't prove anything. Except that you missed the point.
You can match up the letters of the English alphabet and the positive integers 1 through 26 in lots of way. You could say:
A, B match with 1; C,D match with 2, etc. Not a one-to-one correspondence so that's not interesting. BUT
A matches with 1, B matches with 2, etc IS a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets and that proves that the sets have the same cardinality.
If you have sets with different cardinalities then you won't be able to find a one-to-one correspondence because no matter which matching you try something will get left out of being matched up with an element of the other set. Which is how Cantor proved that the cardinality of the real numbers is greater than the cardinality of the integers.
For example, if you try and match up the letters of the English alphabet with the positive integers less than 100 you won't be able to find a one-to-one matching. And that's because there are more positive integers less than 100 than they are letters in the English alphabet. Easy.
The only question is: can you find at least one one-to-one matching? If you can then the sets 'are the same size'. If you can't then the sets are different sizes. That's it.
Your use of 'set subtraction' is NOT a one-to-one correspondence so it doesn't prove anything.
At 9:55 AM,
Joe G said…
Remember, we're talking about the fact that there is a one-to-one correspondence which establishes that the sets have the same cardinality.
So just ignore the fact that there is more than one correspondence? What a desperate loser you are.
When there's a theorem addressing the issue and you think it's wrong then it's up to you to find a mistake in the proof.
I found the mistake- it's in the 19th century way they looked at infinity. You are too stupid to understand that point.
Infinite cardinal numbers don't work the same which is why you have to use different methods.
Your bald assertion isn't an argument.
The only question is: can you find at least one one-to-one matching?
With wavelength and frequency there is only one. If you have more than one way to correlate two different things then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence.
At 10:19 AM,
Unknown said…
So just ignore the fact that there is more than one correspondence? What a desperate loser you are.
It's only the one-to-one correspondences that tell you anything about the cardinality of sets as is clearly laid out in any textbook on Set Theory. And that's a proper textbook like the classic by Irving Kaplansky.
I found the mistake- it's in the 19th century way they looked at infinity. You are too stupid to understand that point.
Nope, There's no fault with the proof. You can' find one and neither can anyone else.
You're just making assertions and you don't understand the mathematics.
Your bald assertion isn't an argument.
It's not a bald assertion. Read a Set Theory textbook.
You are the one making bald assertions which you can't back up with references or examples in textbooks.
With wavelength and frequency there is only one.
Nope. First of all, with wavelength and frequency there is more than one correspondence depending on the speed of the wave. AND some waves travel at different speeds in different mediums. The speed of light is only a constant in a vacuum. The speed of sound is different in air and water and solid objects. Give a fixed speed then yes, there is only one correspondence between wavelength and frequency for a give wave type.
If you have more than one way to correlate two different things then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence.
That is incorrect. We agree that the set of letters in the English alphabet and the set of positive integers from 1 to 26 inclusive have the same cardinality. And we can show a one-to-one correspondence between the sets as you would expect. BUT there are other one-to-one correspondences AND there are NON-one-to-one correspondences and yet the sets are still the same size. As long as you have one one-to-one matching the sets have the same cardinality.
For some reason you just don't get the concept. Don't feel bad, lots of folks don't. And since you're not a mathematician or a teacher of mathematics or someone writing about mathematics then it doesn't matter.
At 10:59 AM,
Joe G said…
It's only the one-to-one correspondences that tell you anything about the cardinality of sets as is clearly laid out in any textbook on Set Theory.
Dumbass- it isn't a one-to-one correspondence if there is more than one way to match the elements.
You're just making assertions and you don't understand the mathematics.
Nice projection.
With wavelength and frequency there is only one.
Nope.
Yes, there is.
First of all, with wavelength and frequency there is more than one correspondence depending on the speed of the wave.
Imbecile- all waves have one and only one frequency and one and only one wavelength.
If you have more than one way to correlate two different things then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence.
That is incorrect.
It is quite correct. Your ignorance is neither an argument nor a refutation.
For some reason you just don't get the concept.
And more projection.
At 11:54 AM,
Unknown said…
Dumbass- it isn't a one-to-one correspondence if there is more than one way to match the elements.
That just isn't true at all. You should really read the definitions of things before you make statements about them. Look at my example of the letters of the alphabet and the numbers 1 to 26. Lots of ways to match them up, some are one-to-one. And the sets are definitely the same size.
Nice projection.
Well I'm sorry to say but it's true that you just don't grasp the mathematical constructs. You don't understand theorems I link to, you can't find any support for your point of view.
Imbecile- all waves have one and only one frequency and one and only one wavelength.
Um . . . sound wave have many different frequencies and wavelengths for the same speed. I agree that a particular sound wave travelling through a uniform medium at a fixed rate will have one frequency and one wavelength.
It is quite correct. Your ignorance is neither an argument nor a refutation.
You're the one who is ignorant of a large body of mathematics. You haven't taken the courses or read the books.
I'm sorry but you continue to display an ignorance of the mathematics and an arrogance for your own unsupported and unused notions. It's not really worth discussing it with you anymore since you continue to deny facts and theorems that are handed to you on a plate. And by this point you'll never admit you were wrong because doing so would make you look very foolish indeed.
If you don't believe me then read a book or ask someone who knows about things like this that you trust. Dr Dembski, Dr Berlinski or Dr Spetner will do. See what they say. I doubt you will ask because you are either too arrogant to think you have to or too afraid that they will tell you you are wrong.
At 12:11 PM,
Joe G said…
Look at my example of the letters of the alphabet and the numbers 1 to 26.
Saw that. Not sure how it is relevant in a discussion pertaining to infinite sets.
Well I'm sorry to say but it's true that you just don't grasp the mathematical constructs.
You are sorry and you didn't even understand the mathematical concept of multiplicand.
Um . . . sound wave have many different frequencies and wavelengths for the same speed.
Exactly- each specific wave has one and only one frequency which has a one-to-one correspondence to one and only one wavelength.
You're the one who is ignorant of a large body of mathematics.
No, asswipe, I disagree with one small, insignificant and outdated concept. One that no one uses for anything.
You have serious issues, Jerad. But I understand why you would want to try to make a mountain out of this. And I understand why you would want to cling to 19th century concepts.
Good luck with that
At 4:36 PM,
Unknown said…
Saw that. Not sure how it is relevant in a discussion pertaining to infinite sets.
The point is you can have many matchings between two sets but as long as there is one that is one-to-one the sets have the same cardinality.
You are sorry and you didn't even understand the mathematical concept of multiplicand.
That is not correct. I understand it perfectly well, I just don't think it needs to be taught.
No, asswipe, I disagree with one small, insignificant and outdated concept. One that no one uses for anything.
Your experience of what is and what is not used is extremely limited. Pick up any Calculus textbook and you'll see infinity all over it. Measure theory uses it all the time. Like most people, your knowledge of mathematics is very limited. There's no shame it that as long as you realise it.
You have serious issues, Jerad. But I understand why you would want to try to make a mountain out of this. And I understand why you would want to cling to 19th century concepts.
Like I just said, your knowledge of mathematics is very limited.
Go to the closest university book store and look through the graduate level mathematics textbooks. It will look like a foreign language because there are literally centuries of concepts you haven't seen or used. But that doesn't make it all unimportant or outdated. Remember, only mathematics has theorems.
At 4:49 PM,
Unknown said…
Saw that. Not sure how it is relevant in a discussion pertaining to infinite sets.
It's pertinent to your point that if there are more than one mapping/correspondence then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence.
You are sorry and you didn't even understand the mathematical concept of multiplicand.
Just because I don't think it's necessary doesn't mean I don't understand it. But you're welcome to flog that dead horse as long as you like if it makes you feel better.
No, asswipe, I disagree with one small, insignificant and outdated concept. One that no one uses for anything.
And you've just shown how uninformed and unaware of modern mathematics you are. Well done.
You have serious issues, Jerad. But I understand why you would want to try to make a mountain out of this. And I understand why you would want to cling to 19th century concepts.
You really shouldn't try to compete on topics you have so little knowledge of. Your call but I can't imagine why you want to look so ignorant.
But, you can always prove me wrong by finding any support for your views in a textbook or academic research paper. You've not managed that in the past so I'm guessing it's not going to happen anytime soon.
So, let's summarise . . .
You've got no support for your views.
You can't defend your views when questioned.
You refuse to accept decades of mathematics based on a concept you think is worthless.
You deny any and all attempts to show you the usefulness of the concepts you can't grasp.
Conclusion: no point in arguing with you any more. You don't get it. You don't want to get it. You refuse to learn.
Fortunately because you're not a mathematics teacher or researcher or writer it doesn't matter that you've got a completely incorrect view of infinity. AND no one is going to care.
So, time to quit trying to help you.
At 5:21 PM,
Joe G said…
It's pertinent to your point that if there are more than one mapping/correspondence then there isn't a one-to-one correspondence.
So you want to redefine "one-to-one correspondence".
I understand it perfectly well, I just don't think it needs to be taught.
It needs to be taught so that people will understand it.
Your experience of what is and what is not used is extremely limited.
Your intellect is extremely limited.
Pick up any Calculus textbook and you'll see infinity all over it.
I don't have an issue with infinity you ignorant fucknut.
Why is it that every time I explain the issue you always change it to something else?
But you're welcome to flog that dead horse as long as you like if it makes you feel better.
That is all YOU do, asshole.
And you've just shown how uninformed and unaware of modern mathematics you are.
Cuz an ignorant coward like you sez so? LoL!
You've got no support for your views.
And yet I have supported them.
You can't defend your views when questioned.
And yet I have defended my views when asked relevant questions.
You refuse to accept decades of mathematics based on a concept you think is worthless.
Now you are just a lying bitch.
You deny any and all attempts to show you the usefulness of the concepts you can't grasp
Might as well keep the lies rolling.
You are a pathetic piece of shit, Jerad.
At 7:23 PM,
Unknown said…
So you want to redefine "one-to-one correspondence".
Not at all. It's just a special kind of mapping. Like I said, clearly you don't get the concepts so it's not really worth trying to convince you anymore.
It needs to be taught so that people will understand it.
Not if it's not used or necessary.
Your intellect is extremely limited.
Maybe. But I took a lot more math courses than you have. I've taught a lot more math courses than you have I've sat in a lot more graduate level seminars than you have. My Erdos number is a lot lower than yours.
I don't have an issue with infinity you ignorant fucknut.
Clearly you do since you don't know how to deal with it according to accepted mathematical formulations.
Why is it that every time I explain the issue you always change it to something else?
I don't. That's you not understanding the material. Like I said, it's not really worth pursuing this anymore. You just don't get it.
That is all YOU do, asshole.
But at least my understanding is consistent with over a century of mathematical research and work.
Cuz an ignorant coward like you sez so? LoL!
No because any mathematician will tell you that your ideas are wrong. Any textbook on Set Theory will tell you that you are wrong. If you bothered to read and try and understand the material online that I've linked to you would be told that you are wrong. If I disappeared tomorrow you will still be wrong. It's not me, it's the truth. You are wrong.
And yet I have supported them.
Nope, you can't answer some basic questions about your 'system'. I know because I asked you before and you bailed.
And yet I have defended my views when asked relevant questions.
Nope, do you want me to repeat them? Here's one: what's the cardinality of the primes? Or: what's the cardinality of the set of perfect squares and perfect cubes? Or: what's the cardinality of the set of all fractions whose numerator and denominator are integers? Or: what's the cardinality of the irrational numbers? Or: what's the cardinality of the imaginary numbers?
Now you are just a lying bitch.
No, it's true. You do reject decades of established mathematics. Many times over.
Might as well keep the lies rolling.
You do and have rejected any and all attempts to show you how such concepts are useful.
You are a pathetic piece of shit, Jerad.
At least I'm not a denialist about well established mathematical concepts and theorems. At least I don't look like a fool because I make ridiculous claims that I have found some basic truths that over a century of mathematicians were too stupid to realise. At least I have read the books and taken the classes and bothered to learn the material before I tried to claim I knew more than everyone else.
Like I've said many times now: it doesn't matter that you are deluded about such things: you don't teach mathematics, you don't write about mathematics, you don't do mathematical research, you've never attempted to get any of your ideas confirmed by working mathematicians, you haven't been able to find any confirmation of your ideas at all, no one is using your ideas. Basically, you've just made up something and you just can't accept that you're wrong even after it's been pointed out to you time and time again.
And you expect people to take your seriously about ID and IC when you can't even accept non-controversial topics like the mathematics of countably infinite sets?
At 7:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, you are a piece-of-shiot coward and a pathological liar.
Why is it that every time I explain the issue you always change it to something else?
Always. For example I am only disagreeing with the insignificant concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality and you change it to saying I didn't understand infinity, when I clearly understand it better than you. You think that just because the concept of infinity is useful that saying countably infinite sets having the same cardinality is also useful.
The mathematics of countably infinite sets supports my claim- set subtraction is still part of mathematics, asshole.
At 5:28 PM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, you are a piece-of-shiot coward and a pathological liar.
Since you haven't taken years and years of mathematics course as I have and since you haven't taught mathematics for years and years as I have I'm just going to take this as a severely uninformed opinion.
Why is it that every time I explain the issue you always change it to something else?
Because you don't understand the concepts we're discussion.
Always. For example I am only disagreeing with the insignificant concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality
Which is NOT an insignificant concept and you're saying so betrays your ignorance. As anyone who has a degree in mathematics will tell you and it is pretty obvious just reading a few Wikipedia pages.
and you change it to saying I didn't understand infinity,
Obviously true or you wouldn't make the completely unsupported and wrong arguments you make.
when I clearly understand it better than you.
A belief for which you can find no academic support at all. AND you can't even defend your own statements!! For example: in your system what is the 'relative' cardinality of the prime numbers? OR: what is the 'relative' cardinality of the set of perfect cubes and perfect 4th powers? OR: what is the 'relative' cardinality of the set of all fractions made up of integer numerators and denominators? OR: what is the 'relative' cardinality of the real numbers? OR: what is the 'relative' cardinality of the irrational numbers?
IF you really did understand infinite cardinal numbers you'd be able to answer all these questions easily. But you can't so you DO NOT UNDERSTAND infinite cardinal numbers. And any claims you make that you do just make you look foolish and arrogant. It's your call.
You think that just because the concept of infinity is useful that saying countably infinite sets having the same cardinality is also useful.
Again, you display your complete ignorance of 20th century mathematics. Saves me the trouble of having to point it out.
The mathematics of countably infinite sets supports my claim- set subtraction is still part of mathematics, asshole.
Icing on my cake. You can't help but dig your mathematical grave deeper and deeper.
AND, if you think you are correct then find some academic support for your views. I've asked you to do this time and time again and you've failed every time. Do you think you can win because I might eventually give up reminding you and everyone else that no one else supports your view of infinite cardinal numbers? Do you really think you can win by being stubborn? Do you think you can win by dodging questions?
At 5:07 AM,
Unknown said…
http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/teacher-marks-child-s-55515-answer-incorrect
Read some of the comments from math teachers.
At 9:16 AM,
Joe G said…
Which is NOT an insignificant concept
It is too- no one uses it for anything. You lose.
Again, you display your complete ignorance of 20th century mathematics.
Again you display cowardice.
You can't find any academic support for your views tat saying countably infinite sets have the same cardinality is of any use. You are a bluffing coward.
At 9:17 AM,
Joe G said…
Read some of the comments from math teachers.
I already know what the math teachers in my school district and surrounding areas say. They agree with me.
At 11:31 AM,
Unknown said…
It is too- no one uses it for anything. You lose.
I've given you plenty of references in the past all of which you either didn't understand or didn't even bother to read. Try this one (hint, it has applications near the end):
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PPc_2qUhXrAC&pg=PA428&lpg=PA428&dq=applications+of+cardinality&source=bl&ots=38Ba0GoOQT&sig=bd1kWKSic6b_Aov9-vHv2wNs_F8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CGIQ6AEwCWoVChMI1eOp4f_syAIVwXEUCh2x9gCk#v=onepage&q=applications%20of%20cardinality&f=false
Again you display cowardice.
How is you displaying your ignorance of 20th century mathematics owing to my cowardice? Especially given you're the one who bailed on an online math test.
You can't find any academic support for your views tat saying countably infinite sets have the same cardinality is of any use. You are a bluffing coward.
In the past I suggested you read some Wikipedia pages which discuss the importance of the whole concept of infinities and infinite cardinal numbers and that the cardinality of the integers is the smallest infinite cardinal number and there were some worked out examples of other sets having the same cardinality as the positive integers. And the articles had references and links to other articles and books and online resources. That's a lot of material for such useless concepts don't you think? Or maybe you just don't understand the mathematics or the references or the importance it all has to the foundations of modern mathematics. Whatever is the truth you continual show off your ignorance and your refusal to learn something new or to admit you are wrong. And this is aside from the fact that you can't defend your alternate position by answering some questions or finding any kind of support like someone else using your methods.
At 11:45 AM,
Joe G said…
Try this one (hint, it has applications near the end):
There isn't anything there that uses the claim that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. They have quite a bit on finite set cardinalities, but that isn't what I am talking about.
Thank you for proving my point.
How is you displaying your ignorance of 20th century mathematics owing to my cowardice?
It's your ignorance of infinity, Jerad. Cantor didn't understand infinity as we do today.
In the past I suggested you read some Wikipedia pages which discuss the importance of the whole concept of infinities and infinite cardinal numbers and that the cardinality of the integers is the smallest infinite cardinal number and there were some worked out examples of other sets having the same cardinality as the positive integers.
Again you prove that you are an imbecile. I am looking for something specific and made my request perfectly clear and you opresent stuff that is irrelevant to my request.
What is the utility of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality? Show us that concept being used for something.
At 1:13 PM,
Unknown said…
There isn't anything there that uses the claim that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. They have quite a bit on finite set cardinalities, but that isn't what I am talking about.
Thank you for proving my point.
It's not a claim as I've said before.
Set theory studies possible cardinalities. Set theory is the basis for modern mathematics. Modern mathematics would look much different if there were different 'sizes' of countably infinite sets. In fact, having different sizes of countably infinite makes no sense.
The section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counting discusses the basic idea of a one-to-one correspondence and the basics of infinite cardinals
This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncountable_set discusses conditions for a set to be uncountable and some ramifications to set theory (the discussion of the Axiom of Choice).
This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel discusses how Hilbert's Grand Hotel paradox is resolved using Cantor's analysis of transfinite numbers. So, again, if all countable sets were NOT the same size then mathematics would look and behave much differently.
And this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable_set points out that the minimal model of set theory is countable. So if countable numbers behaved differently then set theory would be different and mathematics would be different. If mathematics were different then quantum theory and the theory of relativity and such like would be different. Every your smart phone has to account for relativity in the way it utilises GPS signals.
I've told you over and over again that Set Theory is foundational to the construction of modern mathematics. While the actual math might be beyond you it's clear from even these few articles that Set Theory would look much different if there were different sizes of countably infinite sets. I'm not saying it's a concept that needs to be taught to undergraduates. I'm not saying that engineers use the concept on a daily basis. I'm saying that 150 years ago before Cantor's ideas took hold the basis for higher mathematics was not firmly grounded. And if you were right and he was wrong then modern mathematics would look very different today than it does. So, it matters. It matters a lot. And if you still insist on saying it's a worthless concept then you'll never be more than a mathematical technician; one who can learn to follow a rule but who doesn't really understand the underlying principles. And if you don't understand the underlying principles then you shouldn't pretend to know more than people who do.
Take a 300 level set theory course sometime if you don't believe me. Or even just buy a text book on set theory. One that discusses the Axiom of Choice and Zorn's lemma and the Well Ordering Principle.
This page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice discusses the Axiom of Choice, some of its equivalents and how it affects mathematics. Pay particular attention to the section which discusses how different areas of mathematics are affected by aspects of the Axiom of Choice.
At 8:21 AM,
Joe G said…
It's not a claim as I've said before.
It is a claim
Modern mathematics would look much different if there were different 'sizes' of countably infinite sets.
Liar
In fact, having different sizes of countably infinite makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. It is counterintuitive to say they all have the same cardinalities. That is in all the textbooks. Loser.
You are so fucking full of shit, Jerad. No one uses the concept that the cardinality of countably infinite sets are the same. It doesn't have any utility and you prove that every time to try to show otherwise.
I've told you over and over again that Set Theory is foundational to the construction of modern mathematics.
And yet mathematics did fine without it. And the cardinality of infinite sets is not a foundation of mathematics.
Countably infinite sets can have different cardinalities for the same reason that uncountably infinite sets have a different cardinality than countably infinite sets- the density of elements in the sets. And nothing is phased by that except textbooks.
At 8:35 AM,
Joe G said…
Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel is a joke. You already have an infinite number of people and infinite rooms. Then add 1? Really? You can't add a room without it already having an occupant. There isn't any room for additional guests. There shouldn't be any additional guests.
At 8:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Set theory is the branch of mathematical logic that studies sets, which informally are collections of objects.
Can Jerad tell us how to collect an infinite number of objects? If not how can there be a set with infinite objects if sets are collections of objects?
At 3:52 PM,
Unknown said…
It is a claim
You don't understand theorems. Thanks for the confirmation.
Liar
You don't understand modern mathematics or articles written for the public explaining aspects of modern mathematics.
It makes perfect sense. It is counterintuitive to say they all have the same cardinalities. That is in all the textbooks. Loser.
How can you have different kinds of 'countable'? Either a set lines up with the counting numbers or it doesn't.
You are so fucking full of shit, Jerad. No one uses the concept that the cardinality of countably infinite sets are the same. It doesn't have any utility and you prove that every time to try to show otherwise.
You don't 'win' just by denying the evidence. You do, however, make yourself look foolish, ignorant, arrogant and a looney. Your call.
And yet mathematics did fine without it. And the cardinality of infinite sets is not a foundation of mathematics.
Like I've already said, you don't understand modern mathematics AND you deny things you're read.
Countably infinite sets can have different cardinalities for the same reason that uncountably infinite sets have a different cardinality than countably infinite sets- the density of elements in the sets. And nothing is phased by that except textbooks.
Textbooks are based on research but since you haven't read the textbooks or the research then you're just ignorant and your arrogance makes you think you know better than people who have done the research and written the textbooks.
Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel is a joke. You already have an infinite number of people and infinite rooms. Then add 1? Really? You can't add a room without it already having an occupant. There isn't any room for additional guests. There shouldn't be any additional guests.
Thanks again for confirming you don't understand modern mathematics. Maybe it's time you shut up about it since you haven't got a clue?
Can Jerad tell us how to collect an infinite number of objects? If not how can there be a set with infinite objects if sets are collections of objects?
Confirming again that you are ignorant of modern mathematics. Objects don't have to be physical. Not in mathematics. But you don't get modern mathematics.
In the end, your inability to keep your mouth shut about things you know nothing about will just serve to make people question your stance on everything since they will see you denying uncontroversial and accepted work and research. If that's the impression you want to give then you're doing a good job.
Again, you don't win by being a denialist but people will give up trying to teach you if they think you're not willing to learn. And then you've really lost.
At 7:57 PM,
Joe G said…
You don't understand theorems.
You don't understand that not all theorems are created equally.
You don't understand modern mathematics or articles written for the public explaining aspects of modern mathematics.
And you are a pathological liar and a loser.
How can you have different kinds of 'countable'?
See, you just make shit up because you are a loser.
You don't 'win' just by denying the evidence.
You don't "win" by lying like a losing bitch.
Objects don't have to be physical
I never said the had to be- asshole.
But anyway, Jerad is upset because he can't support his claims and is forced to lie like a little faggot.
At 1:22 AM,
Unknown said…
You don't understand that not all theorems are created equally.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand mathematics at all.
And you are a pathological liar and a loser.
You don't have to believe me, there are hundreds of years or research and thousands and thousands of textbooks you can look at for your self.
See, you just make shit up because you are a loser.
I'm not the one who made up different sizes of countably infinite.
You don't "win" by lying like a losing bitch.
That's what you always say when someone disagrees with you. You can't be wrong so they must be lying.
I never said the had to be- asshole.
Then why did you ask how can you collect an infinite number of objects? Use the positive integers.
But anyway, Jerad is upset because he can't support his claims and is forced to lie like a little faggot.
I'm not upset at all. Every reply you leave shows just how ignorant you are of mathematics which I find quite amusing given that you think you know more than thousands and thousands and thousands of people who have studied mathematics in the last few decades a lone.
At 9:34 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, You are a pathological liar. There isn't any utility for saying the cardinalities of countably infinite sets are equal.
Also no one can collect infinite objects, not even numbers. That you think otherwise proves that you are an ignorant ass.
And finally I know I could easily convince the masses of my idea before you could could convince them that cantor was right.
At 9:47 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, You are a pathological liar. There isn't any utility for saying the cardinalities of countably infinite sets are equal.
So says someone who never even got beyond 100-level Calculus. Did you ever take Measure Theory? Or Complex Analysis? Did you take any math course above the 100 level?
Also no one can collect infinite objects, not even numbers. That you think otherwise proves that you are an ignorant ass.
Here's an infinite collection: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . . }
What were you going to do, pick them one-by-one out of a hat? Higher mathematics was developed as people gained greater and greater abilities of abstraction. Looks like you never got that far.
And finally I know I could easily convince the masses of my idea before you could could convince them that cantor was right.
Well, the mathematicians have already decided as have the physicists and the chemists. Most biologists I've met kind of get Cantor's work as well. Who cares what people who haven't studied the work think? It doesn't matter what I think about accounting, I'm not an accountant and if I offered up some dumb-ass theory about accounting then the people who do know would be completely right to make fun of me.
You don't get to be right just by making something up. It has to be tested and considered and poked and prodded. Which is what has happened with Cantor's ideas. .
At 10:00 AM,
Joe G said…
And we are STILL waiting for the utility of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.
Jerad if you were half the mathematician that you think you are you should be able to produce that utility and yet all you can do is bluff.
Here's an infinite collection: {1, 2, 3, 4, 5 . . . . }
That is your opinion. You can't even list the numbers.
Set subtraction proves that I am right. And my logic is the same as Cantor's logic for allowing different cardinalities for uncountably infinite and countably infinite.
At 10:20 AM,
Unknown said…
And we are STILL waiting for the utility of saying that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.
It's not my fault you didn't understand the arguments I gave you. Maybe you should take a real Set Theory course?
Jerad if you were half the mathematician that you think you are you should be able to produce that utility and yet all you can do is bluff.
Again, it's not my fault you didn't understand the material I gave you. Some things cannot be explained to someone without the appropriate background. Maybe you should take a Set Theory course and stop claiming to know more than people who have studied the topic.
That is your opinion. You can't even list the numbers.
What? You can't understand how the pattern continues? Are you capable of any abstract thought at all?
Set subtraction proves that I am right. And my logic is the same as Cantor's logic for allowing different cardinalities for uncountably infinite and countably infinite.
Maybe you should take a real Set Theory course and stop pretending to know more than you do.
At 2:21 PM,
Joe G said…
Then it is settled- Jerad is a bluffing coward, ignoramus and liar.
The material you presented does not cover the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a liar.
And yes I understand the pattern continues but I wanted to see a number in your collection. You can't show it so you can't say that you have it.
Maybe you should shut up seeing tat you are too ignorant to address my arguments.
At 5:03 PM,
Unknown said…
Then it is settled- Jerad is a bluffing coward, ignoramus and liar.
You never have take a course beyond the 100 level at college have you? Otherwise you wouldn't have dodged my online challenge.
The material you presented does not cover the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a liar.
You've just proven again that you are ignorant of Set Theory. Well done. And guess what: you don't get to win by shouting down people who do know the subject. You do however get to look ignorant.
And yes I understand the pattern continues but I wanted to see a number in your collection. You can't show it so you can't say that you have it.
I've got whatever number you want. OH, I get it now, you think infinity is a number!! Just another indication that you do not understand the subject you are trying to discuss.
Maybe you should shut up seeing tat you are too ignorant to address my arguments.
Oh gosh no. I'm enjoying this too much. I love watching you shoot yourself in the foot.
Seriously, I don't mind you being a complete ignoramus about such things. You don't teach math, you don't write about math, you're not a math researcher, you haven't got a degree in math, you haven't spent years studying math so all your proclamations and declarations are just entertainment. Keep it going. You keep proving my point that you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
At 8:02 AM,
Joe G said…
Then it is settled- Jerad is a bluffing coward, ignoramus and liar.
The material you presented does not cover the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a liar.
And yes I understand the pattern continues but I wanted to see a number in your collection. You can't show it so you can't say that you have it.
Maybe you should shut up seeing that you are too ignorant to address my arguments.
Online challenge? Only a coward would suggest such a thing.
At 12:31 PM,
Unknown said…
Then it is settled- Jerad is a bluffing coward, ignoramus and liar.
Not my fault your mathematical knowledge is barely past beginning algebra. Makes it hard to explain higher level concepts.
The material you presented does not cover the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a liar.
It showed how it's useful in mathematics. I can't be responsible for your inability to understand stuff you've never studied or learned.
And yes I understand the pattern continues but I wanted to see a number in your collection. You can't show it so you can't say that you have it.
4,283 is in my collection. As is 5. And 67l,897,654,334,234,112,223. What number were you looking for? If it's an integer it's in my set. But then I can extrapolate a pattern. I'm not sure about you . . . .
Maybe you should shut up seeing that you are too ignorant to address my arguments.
Maybe you should learn how to ask sensible questions in the proper mathematical terms. But, alas, your mathematical knowledge is pretty elementary.
Online challenge? Only a coward would suggest such a thing.
Seemed the most reasonable given the cost of traveling. But you bailed. Didn't even try.
At 12:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Then it is settled- Jerad is a bluffing coward, ignoramus and liar.
The material you presented does not cover the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a liar.
And yes I understand the pattern continues but I wanted to see a number in your collection. You can't show it so you can't say that you have it.
Maybe you should shut up seeing that you are too ignorant to address my arguments.
Online challenge? Only a coward would suggest such a thing.
At 1:14 PM,
Unknown said…
Then it is settled- Jerad is a bluffing coward, ignoramus and liar.
The material you presented does not cover the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a liar.
And yes I understand the pattern continues but I wanted to see a number in your collection. You can't show it so you can't say that you have it.
Maybe you should shut up seeing that you are too ignorant to address my arguments.
Online challenge? Only a coward would suggest such a thing.
I already replied to these comments. If you can't be bothered anymore why not just quit? First you might want to address some of questions I've asked you about your 'relative cardinality' system. That is . . .
What is the relative cardinality of the primes compared to the positive integers?
What is the relative cardinality of the set of all perfect cubes and perfect 4th powers?
Is there a smallest infinite cardinality? If yes what is it? If not then how can there be an infinite sequence of decreasing infinite cardinalities?
AND, again, what makes you think that you, who hasn't even passed multi-variable calculus think that you understand this material well enough to claim that you are right and over a century of mathematicians are wrong? Especially when you can't defend your own alternative.
At 1:16 PM,
Joe G said…
Then it is settled- Jerad is a bluffing coward, ignoramus and liar.
The material you presented does not cover the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a liar.
And yes I understand the pattern continues but I wanted to see a number in your collection. You can't show it so you can't say that you have it.
Maybe you should shut up seeing that you are too ignorant to address my arguments.
Online challenge? Only a coward would suggest such a thing.
At 1:34 PM,
Unknown said…
Hey, it looks like Joe has conceded and given up trying to respond to objections. Cool. Guess that's the end of relative cardinalities and Canto-bashing. Thank goodness. Not sure what 'number' he was looking for . . . aleph-nought is not a number and what else could it be? I think he was just making something up again without any support or worked out examples.
And he never did answer how his system evaluates the relative cardinalities of the primes. You'd think he could handle that since the primes are a basic set any child can understand.
At 4:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Then it is settled- Jerad is a bluffing coward, ignoramus and liar.
The material you presented does not cover the utility of saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You are a liar.
And yes I understand the pattern continues but I wanted to see a number in your collection. You can't show it so you can't say that you have it.
Maybe you should shut up seeing that you are too ignorant to address my arguments.
Online challenge? Only a coward would suggest such a thing.
At 4:56 PM,
Unknown said…
Too funny, Joe has given up defending his ideas. Definitely a win for me.
I could have told him what the cardinality of the primes is. It's easy to look up on the internet but i guess he couldn't manage that.
Anyway, this thread is done and dusted.
At 5:05 PM,
Joe G said…
You are a waste of time and bandwidth, Jerad.
At 5:09 PM,
Unknown said…
You are a waste of time and bandwidth, Jerad.
Hey, if you want to quit without defending your claims it's okay by me. I was hoping you'd figure out the relative cardinality of the primes though. That would be interesting.
At 5:14 PM,
Joe G said…
We have been through this already. Grow up
At 5:18 PM,
Unknown said…
We have been through this already. Grow up
And you still can't answer the question!! Maybe your system doesn't work since it can't deal with some things eh?
At 7:08 AM,
Joe G said…
Maybe you are too much of an ignorant infant to grasp what I post, eh?
At 4:39 PM,
Unknown said…
Maybe you are too much of an ignorant infant to grasp what I post, eh?
Maybe you just never answered the question: what is the cardinality of the primes.
And maybe you should admit that, except for you, no one accepts your approach to cardinalities. And that is not in dispute.
At 7:10 AM,
Joe G said…
Maybe you are just an ignorant pussy- no, obviously you are. Maybe you should accept the claim of countably infinite sets having the same cardinality is useless and meaningless.
At 9:26 AM,
Unknown said…
Maybe you are just an ignorant pussy- no, obviously you are. Maybe you should accept the claim of countably infinite sets having the same cardinality is useless and meaningless.
I prefer going along with well established and non-controversial mathematics thank you. You're welcome to make claims that even you can't back up trying to defend a system that no one in the world uses. It's your choice.
And you still can't tell me, under your system, what the relative cardinality of the set of all primes numbers is. You can't tell me can you because you can't use your own system!
At 9:35 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes, Jerad, you are a good follower. No one uses cantor's system, assface. The concept we are debating doesn't have any utility.
At 2:02 AM,
Unknown said…
Yes, Jerad, you are a good follower. No one uses cantor's system, assface. The concept we are debating doesn't have any utility.
I don't know why you can't read and understand easily available articles elucidating how his work is fundamental to 20th century mathematics. More denialism?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Georg_Cantor.aspx (especially the second half of the article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor
But, as I've already said, your denying what is easily verifiable and no longer controversial just illuminates how out of touch you are with mathematical thinking. Fortunately it doesn't matter since you don't teach mathematics or publish papers or textbooks. In fact, no one takes your system of relative countability seriously and you refuse to accept that you are wrong. So be it, your call.
And you still haven't said what the relative cardinality of the set of all prime numbers is. Clearly you can't do it. Your system fails.
At 7:36 AM,
Joe G said…
Again with more bluffing nonsense. You are a pathetic little coward, Jerad.
It is very telling tat you cannot say, in your own words, what the utility is in saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You can't even post quotes from someone using the concept.
I have said what the cardinality of primes is. You're just too much of an ignorant coward to understand it.
At 10:11 AM,
Unknown said…
Again with more bluffing nonsense. You are a pathetic little coward, Jerad.
It is very telling tat you cannot say, in your own words, what the utility is in saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. You can't even post quotes from someone using the concept.
I have said what the cardinality of primes is. You're just too much of an ignorant coward to understand it.
The point about me NOT using my own words is so that you know it's NOT just my opinion.
You haven't said what the relative cardinality of the primes is. I would remember that.
But, I tell you what . . . you've clearly established that your are completely out of touch with modern mathematics. I'm pretty sure you never even got up to multi-variable Calculus which is generally a sophomore level university course. You don't really understand what theorems are. You are belligerent and rude and generally a bully. And you've shown that you are not interested in actually learning something. So it's probably time to quit this discussion because you are not going to accept that you are incorrect. Enjoy living out in Kookville with no academic support or publications or applications of your ideas in mathematics or outside.
At 11:46 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, you can't use your own words and you can't find anyone's quotes to help you.
You haven't said what the relative cardinality of the primes is.
Yes, I have.
But I tell you what- you are a cowardly wanker who can only follow. And I will only accept that I am incorrect when someone can actually demonstrate such a thing. You have failed, miserably, to do so.
Two counters, one counting every second and one counting every other second. Both represent infinite sets. One counter will always have a higher count than the other, forever, ie for infinity. Not even Cantor can get around that fact of life.
At 5:35 AM,
Unknown said…
But I tell you what- you are a cowardly wanker who can only follow. And I will only accept that I am incorrect when someone can actually demonstrate such a thing. You have failed, miserably, to do so.
Ah well, it doesn't matter anyway. You can stay ignorant of modern mathematics since no one listens to your version anyway.
Two counters, one counting every second and one counting every other second. Both represent infinite sets. One counter will always have a higher count than the other, forever, ie for infinity. Not even Cantor can get around that fact of life.
You have already amply shown your ignorance of real Set Theory, now you're just flogging a dead horse.
At 3:41 PM,
Joe G said…
Two counters, one counting every second and one counting every other second. Both represent infinite sets. One counter will always have a higher count than the other, forever, ie for infinity. Not even Cantor can get around that fact of life.
At 4:48 PM,
Unknown said…
Two counters, one counting every second and one counting every other second. Both represent infinite sets. One counter will always have a higher count than the other, forever, ie for infinity. Not even Cantor can get around that fact of life.
You've shown over and over again that you don't understand what Cantor was saying. That's fine, not everyone gets it. But that doesn't make you right. You really should take a proper Set Theory course before you start spouting off stuff that is incorrect and unsupported.
Best just to leave it for now and stop embarrassing yourself further. That's what I think.
And don't keep asking for references if you can't understand them or deny them. At some point it is down to you to educate yourself regarding the current state of understanding. It's not down to the world to present it all to you on a plate in a form that you will understand.
Like I said, best to leave it alone at this point.
At 9:54 AM,
Joe G said…
Nice cowardly non-response to my post. You must be the most ignorant jerk-off ever.
And please stop posting references that don't support your claims. That is a sure sign of desperation.
At 11:46 AM,
Unknown said…
Nice cowardly non-response to my post. You must be the most ignorant jerk-off ever.
I did take a real Set Theory course among many, many other university level mathematics courses. I understand what Cantor was getting at. You don't which is fine. But you shouldn't pretend to have some great insight when your view is unused and unsupported. Like I've already said, no one takes you even remotely seriously so it doesn't matter what you think.
And please stop posting references that don't support your claims. That is a sure sign of desperation.
I will stop posting references that you can't grasp. But that's not going to leave much since you seem to need everything explained on a elementary school level. I tell you what, since you refuse to read a book about real Set Theory or take a course and you can't understand clearly written discussions of the material let's just forget the whole thing. You can just sit there thinking you're so much smarter than thousands upon thousands of mathematicians but no one else in the world thinks so. The rest of us will get on with Calculus and Differential Equations and Linear Algebra and Topology and Number Theory and Combinatorics and Measure Theory and Abstract Algebra and Graph Theory and a ton of other mathematical topics you've never even heard of. Deal?
At 11:52 AM,
Joe G said…
I did take a real Set Theory course among many, many other university level mathematics courses
And yet you cannot produce an intelligent response to my post. Very telling.
But you shouldn't pretend to have some great insight when your view is unused and unsupported.
Cantor's view on countably infinite sets having the same cardinality is unused.
I will stop posting references that you can't grasp.
And please stop posting references that don't support your claims. That is a sure sign of desperation.
It isn't my fault that you can't support your claims.
At 12:03 PM,
Unknown said…
And yet you cannot produce an intelligent response to my post. Very telling.
It's not my fault your level of mathematical comprehension is about grade level 4. My references are mainstream and non-controversial. Cantor's work is part of the basis of modern mathematics as was clearly stated. No one that I know of, except you, doubts it at all. You're just a crank who likes winding people up with dufus ideas that have no support or use.
Cantor's view on countably infinite sets having the same cardinality is unused.
The opinion of someone who hasn't taken the courses doesn't count. You don't have a clue what modern mathematics is and you keep showing that that is the case.
And please stop posting references that don't support your claims. That is a sure sign of desperation.
I will look for references about Cantor's work written at a 4th grade level but I'm not hopeful.
It isn't my fault that you can't support your claims.
Advanced mathematics can only be simplified so much and then it's your job to try and catch up. I guess you just can't do that.
At 12:07 PM,
Joe G said…
No one uses the concept that countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. Your dishonesty betrays your lack of knowledge.
Two counters, one counting every second and one counting every other second. Both represent infinite sets. One counter will always have a higher count than the other, forever, ie for infinity. Not even Cantor can get around that fact of life.
I understand infinity better than Cantor. That is because of Einstein.
At 12:18 PM,
Unknown said…
No one uses the concept that countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. Your dishonesty betrays your lack of knowledge.
You ignorance of modern mathematics is not my problem. Enjoy being in the 19th century. And not being taken seriously by anyone at all. Being a denialist has its drawbacks. Eventually people start laughing and pointing fingers.
I understand infinity better than Cantor. That is because of Einstein.
Spare me. I'm sure you haven't taken any advanced physics courses either since they are all dependent on real mathematics and not your primary school version. But if you care to explain the mathematics behind quantum tunnelling be my guest.
At 12:47 PM,
Joe G said…
Your cowardice betrays you, Jerad. You can't support your claims but you are a faithful, albeit mindless, parrot. And Cantor was obviously ignorant of relativity. And your appear to be ignorant of the concept too.
At 4:52 PM,
Unknown said…
Your cowardice betrays you, Jerad. You can't support your claims but you are a faithful, albeit mindless, parrot.
Your ignorance betrays you. You can't even understand Wikipedia articles which clearly state that countability is a core concept of Cantor's work which is foundational to modern mathematics. Just like a child if things are spelled out in one syllable terms you don't get it. Mathematics and higher level knowledge goes on and your laziness and inability to do any work to keep up has left you behind. And you stand there and declare: NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED IT TO ME IN A WAY I CAN UNDERSTAND! And the rest of us just shrug and move on and leave you behind. Have fun being ignorant.
And Cantor was obviously ignorant of relativity. And your appear to be ignorant of the concept too.
Of course he was, he did his work 30 years or more before. You are completely laughable at this point. Pig-ignorant and proud of it. Enjoy your obscurity, it's well deserved.
At 7:14 PM,
Joe G said…
You can't even understand Wikipedia articles which clearly state that countability is a core concept of Cantor's work which is foundational to modern mathematics.
Wow, you are a desperate asshole. My argument is not against the concept of countability. You must have the mind of a spoiled brat.
Of course he was, he did his work 30 years or more before
Exactly, dumbass. I see that you are too dim to comprehend what that means.
At 1:33 AM,
Unknown said…
Wow, you are a desperate asshole. My argument is not against the concept of countability. You must have the mind of a spoiled brat.
You argue against the correct view of countability. You think it's something that it's not. You don't get the mathematics at all. You don't even understand your own stance. That's how much of a crank you are.
Exactly, dumbass. I see that you are too dim to comprehend what that means.
Cantor's work has NOTHING to do with relativity. Did you read some dumbass argument on some blog and think: ooo, I'll try that and see if I can shut someone up? I tell you what, you explain to me, specifically, how understanding relativity sheds light on Cantor's work. Go on. I'll wait.
At 6:57 AM,
Joe G said…
You argue against the correct view of countability.
Liar.
You think it's something that it's not.
Liar
You don't get the mathematics at all.
Liar
You don't even understand your own stance.
Liar.
Look just because you have proven to be an ignorant asshole doesn't reflect onto me.
Cantor's work has NOTHING to do with relativity.
Infinity does, moron. Infinity is a journey and you are too stupid to understand what that means.
I tell you what, you explain to me, specifically, how understanding relativity sheds light on Cantor's work.
Already have. As I said you are just an ignorant ass, Jerad.
At 12:26 PM,
Unknown said…
Liar.
Your view of countability is wrong and that is a fact. You can't even support your own stance as you cannot tell me what the relative cardinality of the primes is. You lose.
Liar
Nope, you do think cardinality is something it's not. You think there are multiple countable cardinalities which is incorrect. You lose.
Liar
You can't even argue against Cantor except to say he was wrong. You even think proven theorems can be incorrect. You lose again.
Liar.
You cannot even answer questions about your stance such as: what is the relative cardinality of the prime numbers. You lose.
Look just because you have proven to be an ignorant asshole doesn't reflect onto me.
I apologise for being on the side of established and non-controversial mathematics. Stuff you don't understand. You lose.
Infinity does, moron. Infinity is a journey and you are too stupid to understand what that means.
Cantor dealt with this over 130 years ago. You really should keep up. You lose again.
Already have. As I said you are just an ignorant ass, Jerad.
You are incapable of explaining how relativity sheds light on Cantor's work and you certainly haven't done so except to assert it does. You lose again and again and again.
Seriously, if you took a 200-level math course you'd flunk so fast you'd give the professor wind-burn on your way out.
At 1:02 PM,
Joe G said…
Your view of countability is wrong and that is a fact.
You are a liar and that is a fact.
You can't even support your own stance as you cannot tell me what the relative cardinality of the primes is
I have and I did.
Nope, you do think cardinality is something it's not.
Liar
You can't even argue against Cantor except to say he was wrong
I have said why he is wrong, asshole.
I apologise for being on the side of established and non-controversial mathematics.
If it isn't of any use it isn't established, dumbass.
Cantor dealt with this over 130 years ago.
He couldn't have as he didn't understand relativity.
You are incapable of explaining how relativity sheds light on Cantor's work
I have. Your ignorance is not an argument let alone a refutation.
Seriously, if you took a 200-level math course you'd flunk so fast
Seriously, you are such a fucking infant but still a good blind parrot.
At 6:14 AM,
Unknown said…
You are a liar and that is a fact.
Read this, all of it: http://www.umsl.edu/~siegelj/SetTheoryandTopology/
I have and I did.
Nope, you don't know what the relative cardinality of the primes is.
I have said why he is wrong, asshole.
You were wrong. Read the course linked to above.
If it isn't of any use it isn't established, dumbass.
Completely pig-ignorant of modern mathematics.
He couldn't have as he didn't understand relativity.
And making yourself look even more ignorant. Good job.
I have. Your ignorance is not an argument let alone a refutation.
You haven't made one, single, coherent mathematical argument. You just bluff and bluster with shit you think makes sense. Which proves your ignorance again.
Seriously, you are such a fucking infant but still a good blind parrot.
I took the courses, I had my work looked at and critiqued and evaluated by other people. You just sit at your computer and think you know it all. No wonder you couldn't hack a real math course.
At 7:42 AM,
Joe G said…
Read this, all of it: http://www.umsl.edu/~siegelj/SetTheoryandTopology/
Make your case or admit that you can't.
you don't know what the relative cardinality of the primes is.
Yes, I do and I even told you.
You just bluff and bluster with shit you think makes sense.
Nice projection.
But anyway, set subtraction proves the cardinalities are different and relativity explains why that is. Jerad is too stupid to grasp any of that and he cannot say what the utility is for saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.
He is a pussy for failing to do that.
At 10:38 AM,
Unknown said…
Read the course so I know you understand the basics.
Yes, I do and I even told you.
If you did you weren't specific. Say it again then and prove to us you can use your own system.
But anyway, set subtraction proves the cardinalities are different and relativity explains why that is. Jerad is too stupid to grasp any of that and he cannot say what the utility is for saying all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality.
Nope, set subtraction doesn't do that and you can't grasp the concept.
He is a pussy for failing to do that.
You're an abusive bully who can't understand the Set Theory course I linked to.
At 12:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Nope, set subtraction doesn't do that
Of course it does. Obviously you are just an willfully ignorant loser.
At 1:30 AM,
Unknown said…
Of course it does. Obviously you are just an willfully ignorant loser.
We already know you can't grasp some well established mathematics that is now 140 years old so you can stop embarrassing yourself in public.
No one agrees with you, you can't support your own system (still haven't said what the specific relative cardinality of the primes is) and even you don't use it.
At 10:41 AM,
Joe G said…
We already know that you are a piece-of-shit bluffing coward, jerad. No one uses the concept that we are debating. And all you can do is stomp your feet and cry like the little bitch that you are.
At 2:21 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Math is beyond Joe and it makes him angry.
At 9:58 AM,
Joe G said…
Thinking is beyond Richie and it makes him comatose.
At 12:01 PM,
Unknown said…
Math is beyond Joe and it makes him angry.
He should stop claiming he's good at it. He can't even tell me, according to his system, what the relative cardinality of the primes is. He only ever took a couple of freshman level math courses.
At 9:48 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad, you have proven that you are a moron. Why you think that is OK is beyond me.
At 11:39 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad, you have proven that you are a moron. Why you think that is OK is beyond me.
Calculus I and II are freshman level course and it's pretty clear you never went past those. And I'm not sure you understood those very well either.
And you can't even use your own system to tell me the relative cardinality of the primes.
At 3:31 PM,
Joe G said…
Calculus I and II are freshman level course and it's pretty clear you never went past those.
And I have never used either one for anything.
And you can't even use your own system to tell me the relative cardinality of the primes.
And you can't even understand simple explanations.
At 3:56 PM,
Unknown said…
And I have never used either one for anything.
I'm not surprised. Most people shouldn't even bother.
And you can't even understand simple explanations.
I can actually. If you offered one. But you have spent days, if not weeks now, avoiding giving your explanation for what is the relative cardinality of the primes. So, I'm saying: you haven't got one. That's my claim. Something you can disprove. If you're able.
I'm betting you can't.
At 4:03 PM,
Joe G said…
I'm not surprised. Most people shouldn't even bother.
Right, it doesn't help them do anything. OTOH you can't even understand the implications of the basics, like subtraction.
And you can't even understand simple explanations. And yes, one was offered, months ago.
At 4:06 PM,
Unknown said…
Right, it doesn't help them do anything. OTOH you can't even understand the implications of the basics, like subtraction.
Unlike you I do understand Calculus and its uses. And they are legion. I'm just saying that most people never have need of it. Because most people do pretty basic jobs.
And you can't even understand simple explanations. And yes, one was offered, months ago.
Well link to it then. You've wasted enough time arguing, show us and be done with it.
Or admit you can't tell us what the relative cardinality of the primes is. In your system.
At 4:12 PM,
Joe G said…
Unlike you I do understand Calculus and its uses.
See, you are a fucking little faggot. How the fuck can you get to that from what was said?
I understand its uses. I never said it didn't have any utility.
And you can't even understand simple explanations. And yes, one was offered, months ago.
Well link to it then.
You choked on it the first time, dipshit. And there is no way I am going to search through all of the comments to find something that I know is settled.
You've wasted enough time arguing,
You are the little faggot who is wasting time.
Or admit you can't tell us what the relative cardinality of the primes is. In your system.
I DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM YET YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BITCH. I DID PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, GIVEN A PROVISIONAL REFERENCE.
Grow up, wanker.
At 4:19 PM,
Unknown said…
See, you are a fucking little faggot. How the fuck can you get to that from what was said?
I was just interpreting a lot of your past responses.
I understand its uses. I never said it didn't have any utility.
Good.
You choked on it the first time, dipshit. And there is no way I am going to search through all of the comments to find something that I know is settled.
If you really did have an explanation you should know what it is and NOT have to link to it. You should just be able to restate it. So, I guess you haven't got one. Like I thought.
You are the little faggot who is wasting time.
But I have shown you don't know what the relative cardinality of the primes is. You can't link to it and you can't explain it again. Case closed.
I DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM YET YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BITCH. I DID PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, GIVEN A PROVISIONAL REFERENCE.
And what was that example? Duck, dodge, deny. Welcome to Joe World.
Grow up, wanker.
Why don't you work at supporting your claims instead of being offensive.
At 4:23 PM,
Joe G said…
You should just be able to restate it.
I shouldn't have to restate it. Only a little faggot would go to the lengths you have just to be proven an asshole, again.
But I have shown you don't know what the relative cardinality of the primes is
No, you just keep repeating that as if that is an argument.
And what was that example?
Go back and find it.
Why don't you work at supporting your claims instead of being offensive.
I have supported them. You are just a jealous little piece-of-shit coward.
At 4:26 PM,
Unknown said…
I shouldn't have to restate it. Only a little faggot would go to the lengths you have just to be proven an asshole, again.
You can't link to it. You can't restate it. Sounds to me like it doesn't exist.
No, you just keep repeating that as if that is an argument.
It's not my fault you can't provide the argument you say you made.
Go back and find it.
I looked, I couldn't find it. Can you?
I have supported them. You are just a jealous little piece-of-shit coward.
Can you tell us what the relative cardinality of the primes is or not? Yes or no?
At 4:36 PM,
Joe G said…
So now it's my fault that Jerad the cowardly wanker is a forgetful little bitch.
Can you tell us what the relative cardinality of the primes is or not? Yes or no?
Whatever the bijective function is.
At 4:40 PM,
Unknown said…
So now it's my fault that Jerad the cowardly wanker is a forgetful little bitch.
So you can't link to your argument and you can't restate it. Guess we're done here.
Conclusion: Joe CAN NOT tell us what the relative cardinality of the primes is.
Whatever the bijective function is.
That's up to you to come up with isn't it? What is it?
At 5:35 PM,
Joe G said…
That's up to you to come up with isn't it?
You should be able to do it- that is if you were half the mathematician that you think you are.
Relative cardinalities and set density go hand in hand, Jerad. Density is the factor Cantor considered for determining there are different infinities. I am just applying it universally. And I can't believe that you are too stupid to understand that simple fact.
At 12:03 AM,
Unknown said…
You should be able to do it- that is if you were half the mathematician that you think you are.
Can you determine the relative cardinality of the primes, yes or no?
Relative cardinalities and set density go hand in hand, Jerad. Density is the factor Cantor considered for determining there are different infinities. I am just applying it universally. And I can't believe that you are too stupid to understand that simple fact.
Can you determine the relative cardinality of the primes (as you claimed over and over again) yes or no?
At 8:34 AM,
Joe G said…
You should be able to do it- that is if you were half the mathematician that you think you are.
At 11:20 AM,
Unknown said…
You should be able to do it- that is if you were half the mathematician that you think you are.
You claimed you knew what the relative cardinality of the primes is. And now you're bailing on that claim.
This has nothing to do with me, this is about you upholding your claim or not.
Can you determine the relative cardinality of the primes yes or no?
At 12:24 PM,
Joe G said…
You claimed you knew what the relative cardinality of the primes is.
The explanation was granted, again:
I DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM YET YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BITCH. I DID PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, GIVEN A PROVISIONAL REFERENCE.
I am not going through it again just because you are an infant cry-baby.
At 12:45 PM,
Unknown said…
I DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM YET YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BITCH. I DID PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, GIVEN A PROVISIONAL REFERENCE.
What a handwaving bunch of BS. 'given a provisional reference', what does that mean? It means you don't have a bijection and so you can't use your system. And you can't find an appropriate bijection.
More than once above you said something like:
I have said what the cardinality of primes is. You're just too much of an ignorant coward to understand it.
Loof for yourself. I copied that directly from one of your comments.
And now you claim you didn't know what it was. Figures.
Anyway, bottom line: you don't know what the relative cardinality of the primes is in your system. Thank you for finally admitting that.
At 1:09 PM,
Joe G said…
'given a provisional reference', what does that mean?
Buy a dictionary and get an education.
Anyway, bottom line: you don't know what the relative cardinality of the primes is in your system
I DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM YET YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BITCH. I DID PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, GIVEN A PROVISIONAL REFERENCE.
Go back and look for yourself. I know I did it, you are the one who is doubting it. And I don't care about your ignorance as your ignorance is not an argument.
At 1:13 PM,
Unknown said…
Buy a dictionary and get an education.
What you said has no particular mathematical meaning and does nothing to clarify the situation. It's just you trying to claim some knowledge that you don't have.
You and your system can not say what the relative cardinality of the primes is. You can't find a bijective function and you haven't got a clue about the density of the primes. You just say stuff you hope makes sense.
Go back and look for yourself. I know I did it, you are the one who is doubting it. And I don't care about your ignorance as your ignorance is not an argument.
Whatever. You don't know what the relative cardinality of the primes is. End of story.
At 2:56 PM,
Joe G said…
I DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM YET YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BITCH. I DID PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, GIVEN A PROVISIONAL REFERENCE.
Go back and look for yourself. I know I did it, you are the one who is doubting it. And I don't care about your ignorance as your ignorance is not an argument.
At 5:38 PM,
Unknown said…
I DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM YET YOU IGNORANT LITTLE BITCH. I DID PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT WOULD BE, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, GIVEN A PROVISIONAL REFERENCE.
You sure don't have a system even though you think you understand infinity better than Cantor. Oh you've made lots of arrogant boasts that you can't uphold. Your example is meaningless because all you're doing is saying: the relative cardinality of the primes is going to be like the relative cardinality of the multiples of two except . . . I don't know what to divide by. And that is the whole point: your approach depends on being able to easily find a simple function that maps the integers to the second set. And you can't do that with the primes. Which is why your approach is going to fail.
Go back and look for yourself. I know I did it, you are the one who is doubting it. And I don't care about your ignorance as your ignorance is not an argument.
Yeah, yeah. You're inability to come up with something is all the argument I need to trash your approach.
You arrogantly claim you understand infinity better than over a century of mathematicians and you provide some basic, simple examples but when someone asks you about something a bit harder to track you quickly back-peddle and whine and say you haven't actually got a system. Despite making all kinds of grandiose claims about having some great insight.
And, the most telling bit . . . just like your ID buddies, you're doing absolute shit to develop or defend your ideas. You can't even look up and understand the work that has already been done. IF you really cared about this prime density issue you would have checked out the prime number theorem. But you haven't because, when it comes down to it, it's not about discovering some great, unrealised truth about mathematics. You don't really give a shit about that. All you care about is trying to shout down people who disagree with you about evolutionary theory.
Accepting Cantor's work would not have hurt (or helped) your arguments regarding biological development. You just thought: those evoTards think one way so I'm going to take another view point. And now you can't follow through and uphold your claims.
You don't have a system at all, that is true. You came up with this idea of relative cardinality but now you admit that it's so incomplete that you can't even figure out what the relative cardinality of the primes is. You think your saying things like: it depends on the bijection and the density mean something. But you're really just pointing out how inadequate your idea is and how you can't even support it. Meanwhile you've been saying shit like: I understand infinity better than Cantor. Well, he had an answer for what is the cardinality of the primes. And you don't.
So I guess you lose and Cantor wins. By your own admission you don't know what the cardinality of the primes is. So we are very done with this now. No matter how much you continue to flail around and try and salvage something out of this the bottom line is: you can not handle the cardinality of the primes. And you're not even trying.
If you don't care then why should I?
At 7:05 PM,
Joe G said…
You sure don't have a system even though you think you understand infinity better than Cantor.
The two are not related, dipshit.
your approach depends on being able to easily find a simple function that maps the integers to the second set.
That helps but it isn't required. Once the simple functions are mapped out the rest can be plugged in.
You arrogantly claim you understand infinity better than over a century of mathematicians
I showed Cantor's approach leads to logical contradictions. At least mine is universal and doesn't require special pleading.
And ONE MORE TIME- no one uses the concept of all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It was useless to Cantor and it has remained a useless concept.
I don't care what the cardinality of primes is. That is like asking for the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. THAT is the whole point, moron.
At 1:44 AM,
Unknown said…
The two are not related, dipshit.
Blah, blah, blah. You don't understand infinite sets better than Cantor. He knew what the cardinality of the primes is, you don't.
That helps but it isn't required. Once the simple functions are mapped out the rest can be plugged in.
But you can't do that can you? You're just making stuff up so you don't look like a fool.
I showed Cantor's approach leads to logical contradictions. At least mine is universal and doesn't require special pleading.
But you can't make yours work can you? You lose.
And ONE MORE TIME- no one uses the concept of all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It was useless to Cantor and it has remained a useless concept.
Whine, bitch, moan. You are such a poor loser.
I don't care what the cardinality of primes is. That is like asking for the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. THAT is the whole point, moron.
You sure spent a lot of time saying you knew something about it didn't you? And you didn't despite all your hand waving and bitching and moaning and whining. Calling people liars and faggots. And you had nothing. If you can't find an easy function between the positive integers and another set you can't figure out the 'relative' cardinality. Useless system that can't handle stuff.
Stay away from mathematics. Unless you want to continue to look like a bitching, whining dope who doesn't know what he's talking about.
At 9:10 AM,
Joe G said…
You don't understand infinite sets better than Cantor.
All evidence to the contrary, of course.
He knew what the cardinality of the primes is,
What is it, then?
But you can't do that can you?
Blah, blah, blah. You are nothing but a coward, Jerad.
But you can't make yours work can you?
More blah, blah, blah- coward
And ONE MORE TIME- no one uses the concept of all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It was useless to Cantor and it has remained a useless concept.
Calling people liars and faggots.
Those were OBSERVATIONS and they still stand.
I showed Cantor's approach leads to logical contradictions. At least mine is universal and doesn't require special pleading.
At 9:33 AM,
Unknown said…
All evidence to the contrary, of course.
Un huh. HIs system is used, yours isn't.
What is it, then?
All infinite subsets of countably infinite sets are also countable infinite.
Blah, blah, blah. You are nothing but a coward, Jerad.
It's not my fault you talk big and then fail.
More blah, blah, blah- coward
Again, it's not my fault you talk big and then fail.
And ONE MORE TIME- no one uses the concept of all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It was useless to Cantor and it has remained a useless concept.
Like you, someone who isn't a mathematician, doesn't teach mathematics, hasn't taken many mathematics course would know. Like I said before: who cares what you think?
Those were OBSERVATIONS and they still stand.
Since your 'observations' are abusive and wrong . . . who cares?
I showed Cantor's approach leads to logical contradictions. At least mine is universal and doesn't require special pleading.
Not being able to understand Cantor's work doesn't make you right.
Like I said, you can keep digging the hole you're standing in deeper and deeper but I'd quit if I were you. Unless you can figure out the relative cardinality of the primes. Or the perfect cubes. Or the 4th powers. Or a whole bunch of other infinite sets that you can't handle. That's why your system is a dead end and no one uses it. It doesn't work.
At 9:47 AM,
Joe G said…
No one uses Cantor's concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. The concept is useless and Jerad is a liar.
Since your 'observations' are abusive and wrong
My observations are spot-on- loser
Like you, someone who isn't a mathematician, doesn't teach mathematics, hasn't taken many mathematics course would know. Like I said before: who cares what you think?
LoL! You cannot demonstrate otherwise, dipshit.
You are a loser and a coward, Jerad
Nice job
At 10:01 AM,
Unknown said…
No one uses Cantor's concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. The concept is useless and Jerad is a liar.
You're going to wear out that shovel you keep digging your own grave with.
My observations are spot-on- loser
Who cares what you think? You're not a scientist or a mathematician. Nor do you teach those things. Nor do you do any work in those fields. You just talk. You don't come up with the goods.
LoL! You cannot demonstrate otherwise, dipshit.
Who cares what you think? You're just a crackpot who hasn't even got the gumption to do some work to support your own ideas. You believe in some undetected and undefined designer but you do jack-shit to prove s/he/it's existence. You have a completely stupid view of infinity which you can't even apply to lots of simple cases and you even admitted you don't care.
You just like to talk and wind people up. That's why no one cares what you think.
You are a loser and a coward, Jerad
Nice job
Who cares what you think? Come up with something that works or do some original research.
Or at least take a real course so you see something that's not just elementary.
At 10:20 AM,
Joe G said…
No one uses Cantor's concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. The concept is useless and Jerad is a liar.
Jerad has tried to refute my claim and every time he has FAILED miserably.
Geez, I wonder why that is?
At 10:36 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad has tried to refute my claim and every time he has FAILED miserably.
Geez, I wonder why that is?
Who cares what you think? You don't do mathematical research. You don't teach mathematics. You came up with some dumb-ass system for dealing with infinity which doesn't work and you can't be bothered to try and make it work. Meanwhile you claim to know more than thousands and thousands of mathematicians who have actually taken the courses, studied the material, did some work that was evaluated by others who have also done the work. You think you're right and yet you haven't got the balls to test out your ideas with people who actually do know the mathematics.
Your opinion is completely irrelevant. No one takes you seriously. No one cares about your bogus ideas which don't work.
If you don't understand the use of some of Cantor's ideas it doesn't matter and I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to teach someone who is plainly not really interested in learning.
At 10:40 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! What a loser and a coward you are, Jerad.
Thank you for continuing to prove that my claims cannot be refuted.
At 10:58 AM,
Unknown said…
LoL! What a loser and a coward you are, Jerad.
No one cares what you think. Especially when you can't even defend your own ideas. Still can't figure out what the relative cardinality of the primes is.
Thank you for continuing to prove that my claims cannot be refuted.
Like I said, since you refuse to accept anything that you disagree with and since you've already rejected evidence I'm not going to bother anymore.
It's obvious to anyone who really does know anything about Set Theory that you are a clueless dope. And no one takes you or your opinion seriously.
You can go on making bogus claims and saying things that aren't true but you're just dropping further and further below any kind of intellectual radar. Fortunately, it doesn't matter since you have no influence whatsoever. Dr Dembski, Dr Berlinski and KairosFocus disagree with your views on infinity. I suspect Dr Spetner would as well. And Shapiro. You're just a lone crackpot who is so obviously wrong that no one is even going to try and argue with you anymore.
At 11:04 AM,
Joe G said…
Jerad the bluffing coward can't defend anything.
Thank you for continuing to prove that my claims cannot be refuted. And thank you for continuing to prove that you are a liar.
At 11:06 AM,
Unknown said…
Jerad the bluffing coward can't defend anything.
No one cares.
Thank you for continuing to prove that my claims cannot be refuted. And thank you for continuing to prove that you are a liar.
No one cares.
And you still haven't figured out what the relative cardinality of the primes is.
At 11:09 AM,
Joe G said…
I care that you are a liar and bluffing faggot. It proves that you are a waste of skin
At 11:13 AM,
Unknown said…
I care that you are a liar and bluffing faggot. It proves that you are a waste of skin
Figured out what the relative cardinality of the primes is yet? Or the relative cardinality of the cubes? Or the rational numbers? Or the irrational numbers? Or the Reals? Or the hyper-real numbers? Or the imaginary numbers? Or the transcendental numbers? Or the surreal numbers?
Found your supposed extra coding 'in the cell'?
Figured out how that coding is stored?
Figured out how it affects development?
Figured out when design was implemented?
Figured out how design was implemented?
Found that designer yet?
At 11:57 AM,
Joe G said…
Well, unlike you, I am smart enough to know that if I can subtract all of the elements of one set from another and still have a set of infinite elements left, the first two sets did not have the same cardinality, ie the same number of elements.
Found your supposed extra coding 'in the cell'?
I found the evidence for it. And you don't have anything to explain the existence of living organisms.
Figured out how it affects development?
Development wouldn't happen without it and your position can't explain development.
Figured out when design was implemented?
Not even working on it as it is not important. And your position only guesses at when.
Figured out how design was implemented?
Not even working on it as it is not important. And your position only guesses at how natural selection, drift and neutral changes donedidit. You can't even muster testable hypotheses.
Found that designer yet?
Found plenty of evidence tat at least one existed. And your position still has nothing but lies and bluffing cowards like yourself.
Good luck with that
At 12:10 PM,
Unknown said…
I found the evidence for it. And you don't have anything to explain the existence of living organisms.
But you haven't found it. So if the book you read that convinced you mutations are guided is wrong then your evidence evaporates.
Development wouldn't happen without it and your position can't explain development.
But you can't say how it affects development. So you don't know if development depends on it.
Not even working on it as it is not important. And your position only guesses at when.
Thanks for admitting you're not even interested. And who says ID isn't a science stopper?
Not even working on it as it is not important. And your position only guesses at how natural selection, drift and neutral changes donedidit. You can't even muster testable hypotheses.
Thanks for admitting you're not even interested. Just like all the good Christians who think the designer is God; once you think you've found HIM you stop asking questions.
Found plenty of evidence tat at least one existed. And your position still has nothing but lies and bluffing cowards like yourself.
None that stands up in either a court of law or amongst scientists who know the field. No designer means no design. But you've already decided so you're not interested in any evidence. You've read a few books and you're convinced. Now you just like to wind up evoTards and try and get them angry. But you don't really have any questions to research, anything you think needs doing. It's all over as far as you're concerned. As you've now finally admitted. You're not even looking for the coding 'cause you've already decided it exists.
And you'll be saying the same thing for decades because you are impervious to new data. Is that how science is done? You base your conclusion on a few non-peer reviewed books and then deny anything that disagrees with them?
Just like the good Christians who really, truly believe. You don't 'do' science at all. You just 'do' belief. And you're not interested in any follow-on questions or issues. God be praised.
At 12:24 PM,
Joe G said…
But you haven't found it.
You still have nothing.
So if the book you read that convinced you mutations are guided is wrong then your evidence evaporates.
It wasn't just a book, dickface. And you still have nothing.
But you can't say how it affects development.
But you still have nothing and yours still cannot explain development.
Thanks for admitting you're not even interested.
I am not on your asinine agenda, dipshit. And you still have nothing.
And who says ID isn't a science stopper?
Everyone who understands ID and science.
Just like all the good Christians who think the designer is God; once you think you've found HIM you stop asking questions.
And yet all of the great scientists were Christian and saw science as a way of understanding God's Creation. You are one ignorant asshole, Jerad. And your position still has nothing.
None that stands up in either a court of law or amongst scientists who know the field.
A court of law is ignorant wrt science and no scientist can refute the design inference. They have nothing. You are just a little ignorant and gullible follower.
But you've already decided so you're not interested in any evidence.
Nice projection, faggot. You choke on the evidence and you cannot produce any evidence for natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes producing multi-protein machinery. You are just an ignorant piece-of-shit lying loser.
As for how science is done- LoL!- you don't have any idea how science is done. Your position doesn't do any nor does it have any to support its claims. At least ID has a scientific methodology. You can't even say that.
At 5:07 PM,
Unknown said…
You still have nothing.
Non-sequitor. You have not found any physical evidence of extra programming in the cell.
It wasn't just a book, dickface. And you still have nothing.
Oh, sorry. You read two books. Or three books. Or several books and a couple of papers. The point is you have based your whole stance on a small number of non-peer reviewed publications (and a old paper that the authors now admit was flawed). And if that tiny pedestal collapses then your whole belief falls to the ground. Unless it's really based on faith and all your arguing is just trying to make your beliefs sound scientific.
But you still have nothing and yours still cannot explain development.
We're talking about your grandiose claims and your indifference towards trying to find answers for the obvious questions your statements lead to.
I am not on your asinine agenda, dipshit. And you still have nothing.
You don't have a research agenda. You think you've won. You claim to understand science and yet you do none and have no plans or interest in doing any. Meanwhile you ignore and deny evidence which undercuts your stance. Which is not how science is done.
Everyone who understands ID and science.
Yes but none of those people are doing any positive ID research. The only pro-ID research is trying to disprove non-directed evolution. There is no positive research into ID. And you've admitted you're not even interested in some of the obvious questions.
And yet all of the great scientists were Christian and saw science as a way of understanding God's Creation. You are one ignorant asshole, Jerad. And your position still has nothing.
Unlike you they didn't just quit with: God did it. You don't even care about how or when. You're not a scientist, you're a acolyte. You help carry around the sacred writings and shout down dissenters. You don't care about science or knowledge. You only care about being right.
A court of law is ignorant wrt science and no scientist can refute the design inference. They have nothing. You are just a little ignorant and gullible follower.
Take away the few texts you have supporting guided mutations and what have you got? And why aren't you doing work trying to find more reasons to believe? Because you're not a scientist. No scientist would be happy with a few disputed publications. Unlike you who think you already know all you need to know.
Nice projection, faggot. You choke on the evidence and you cannot produce any evidence for natural selection, drift and/ or neutral changes producing multi-protein machinery. You are just an ignorant piece-of-shit lying loser.
You know, when it's pointed out how thin the ledge you're standing on is you get more and more abusive. I've noticed this about true believers; when then think they might lose they get nasty instead of finding evidence.
As for how science is done- LoL!- you don't have any idea how science is done. Your position doesn't do any nor does it have any to support its claims. At least ID has a scientific methodology. You can't even say that.
How can you tell it has a methodology when it doesn't publish any positive ID research? No one is going around applying some, as of now, mysterious design detection procedure to any and all candidates to prove the technique works. You completely bailed on the two examples I asked you to examine. If you're doing science then you have precious little to show for it.
Newton might have been a Christian but he knew how to defend his work. You don't even care to look past what you already have decided is true. You're ignoring and denying anything which contradicts you. You get abusive and defensive when you run out of things to say. You are not following all the evidence, only what you chose to accept.
At 5:07 PM,
Unknown said…
You haven't found any physical evidence of extra coding in the cell.
You haven't demonstrated a worked out biological example of an objective, quantifiable design detection technique.
You haven't demonstrated a worked out biological example of ruling out chance and necessity.
You bail every time someone asks you to apply your 'techniques' to an example that someone else hasn't already done.
You're abusive and rude. People who contradict you are 'liars'.
You do no research.
You ignore and deny contradictory data.
Like all the other ID proponents you have no research agenda and don't even care about examining obvious questions about how and when design was implemented.
Faith is a fine thing, but it's not science.
At 7:14 AM,
Joe G said…
You haven't found any physical evidence of extra coding in the cell.
Yes, I have. OTOH you have nothing.
You haven't demonstrated a worked out biological example of an objective, quantifiable design detection technique.
Yes, I have and your ignorance is neither a refutation nor an argument.
You haven't demonstrated a worked out biological example of ruling out chance and necessity
You haven't demonstrated a worked out biological example of ruling in chance and necessity. You are a loser and a coward.
You ignore and deny contradictory data.
Liar
Faith is a fine thing, but it's not science.
Faith is all you have, asshole.
At 7:17 AM,
Joe G said…
The point is you have based your whole stance on a small number of non-peer reviewed publications
Liar.
The point is no matter what you say you still have nothing.
Look, Jerad, you are nothing but an ignorant asshole, a liar and a coward. You don't have anything, not even a few texts supporting unguided evolution. All you have are lies, misrepresentations, bluffs, strawmen and cowardly equivocations.
You are a loser
At 7:19 AM,
Joe G said…
I've noticed this about true believers; when then think they might lose they get nasty instead of finding evidence.
YOU don't have any evidence, asshole. And you don't have any chance at ever finding the evidence to support the claims of your position. All you can do is flail away at ID with your ignorance. You are a pathetic wanker
At 9:38 AM,
Unknown said…
Yes, I have. OTOH you have nothing.
You haven't found any physical evidence. You don't know where it's stored, how it's stored or how it affects development or changes in the species.
You haven't demonstrated a worked out biological example of ruling in chance and necessity. You are a loser and a coward.
None of which is true of course. AND attacking another model doesn't give you what you want.
Look, Jerad, you are nothing but an ignorant asshole, a liar and a coward. You don't have anything, not even a few texts supporting unguided evolution. All you have are lies, misrepresentations, bluffs, strawmen and cowardly equivocations.
You keep singing the same song over and over again and an incredibly vast majority of biologists disagree with you. But, just like a good faith-head, you still believe. That's not how to do science. That's how to do dogma.
YOU don't have any evidence, asshole. And you don't have any chance at ever finding the evidence to support the claims of your position. All you can do is flail away at ID with your ignorance. You are a pathetic wanker
Notice how you betray the fact that you will never, ever accept any evidence supporting unguided evolution. That's why you're not a scientist: you don't follow the data or the evidence. You've decided and that's that. Which is why you (and all the other ID supporters) don't have a research agenda. How can you research God?
You might claim you're not a Christian but you're at least a deist. You believe in some unknown and undefined big daddy in the sky who set up the universe so human beings could come into existence, be fruitful and multiply, and discover his glory and handiwork. Too bad about all the natural disasters and the diseases and letting people like Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler and the Crusaders kill millions of innocent people. Too bad lots of us will die from cancer or dementia owing to no fault of our own. It'll all be okay in the afterlife when we get to find out what the big plan was. That's why it doesn't matter if we figure out who the mysterious designer was, we're going to meet him someday.
And you call that science? More like anti-science. Don't ask questions, just believe.
Real scientists WANT to know how and why and when. Real scientists think all questions are okay. Real scientists WANT to do research and learn stuff. ID supporters don't ask and don't want to know. They already know all they need to know. And nothing is going to change their minds. They only pretend to do science so they can bring their designer into the science classroom. Gotta sell the product eh? Can't let the deity down, he might bring another flood or plague if he's unhappy.
At 10:04 AM,
Joe G said…
You haven't found any physical evidence.
Yes, I have and your ignorance means nothing, asshole. And you don't have anything.
You haven't demonstrated a worked out biological example of ruling in chance and necessity. You are a loser and a coward.
None of which is true of course.
It is all true you lying bitch.
AND attacking another model doesn't give you what you want.
It helps as science mandates that design inferences first eliminate necessity and chance. Again your ignorance betrays you.
an incredibly vast majority of biologists disagree with you
That alleged vast majority doesn't have anything to refute ID nor support their claims.
Notice how you betray the fact that you will never, ever accept any evidence supporting unguided evolution.
Lying moron.
That's why you're not a scientist: you don't follow the data or the evidence.
Nice projection, wanker.
Your position doesn't know the hows. the why's and the whens. Your position doesn't have anything. No research, no models, no testable hypotheses and no evidence.
Look, Jerad, you are nothing but an ignorant asshole, a liar and a coward. You don't have anything, not even a few texts supporting unguided evolution. All you have are lies, misrepresentations, bluffs, strawmen and cowardly equivocations.
You are a loser
And thank you for proving all of my points.
At 10:33 AM,
Unknown said…
Yes, I have and your ignorance means nothing, asshole. And you don't have anything.
Where's your research agenda? What experiments has ID done in the last decade?
It is all true you lying bitch.
Science by abuse?
It helps as science mandates that design inferences first eliminate necessity and chance. Again your ignorance betrays you.
I didn't know you could do that by being abusive with no research agenda. Fascinating.
That alleged vast majority doesn't have anything to refute ID nor support their claims.
Yawn.
Lying moron.
More abuse. Lovely.
Nice projection, wanker.
But wait, there's even more abuse.
Look, Jerad, you are nothing but an ignorant asshole, a liar and a coward. You don't have anything, not even a few texts supporting unguided evolution. All you have are lies, misrepresentations, bluffs, strawmen and cowardly equivocations.
Are you just going to keep repeating yourself or are you going to propose a research agenda and do some work?
Oh that's right: you don't need to do any research since God did it. My bad. Next time you talk to him, ask your designer what's with all that junk DNA. You might learn something.
And thank you for proving all of my points.
Thank you for admitting you're not interested in any real research, that clears things up a lot. For a while there I took you seriously.
And you still haven't figured out the relative cardinality of the primes. Not much good your system of relative cardinalities is it? It can't do shit.
Oh you can spare me further abuse, I've had enough for the year thanks. Unless you want to continue to make yourself appear to be a petulant bully with no data or research. Then please, be my guest.
At 10:52 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL! Where is the research agenda for unguided evolution? Where are the testable hypotheses for unguided evolution? Where is the evidence for unguided evolution?
And thank you for proving that you are a scientifically illiterate asswiper.
At 10:54 AM,
Joe G said…
BTW, Jerad, I reposted the physical evidence for the software in living organisms. You can choke on that, too.
At 1:49 AM,
Unknown said…
LoL! Where is the research agenda for unguided evolution? Where are the testable hypotheses for unguided evolution? Where is the evidence for unguided evolution?
Oh wow, you can't even do a Google search. Fascinating.
And thank you for proving that you are a scientifically illiterate asswiper.
And, of course, some more abuse.
BTW, Jerad, I reposted the physical evidence for the software in living organisms. You can choke on that, too.
No thanks, I've got better things to do than to debate evidence with someone who claims to know more about science than working scientists but not only doesn't do any himself but doesn't even care about obvious scientific questions because he thinks he knows all he needs to know already.
At least now I won't have to read your old "we determine those things after design has been detected" because now I know you don't give a shit about when design was implemented or how. God did it is good enough for you.
Figured out the relative cardinality of the primes yet?
At 7:05 AM,
Joe G said…
Oh wow, you can't even do a Google search. Fascinating.
Oh wow, you are a bluffing loser.
I've got better things to do than to debate evidence with someone who claims to know more about science than working scientists
I never made that claim. You must be the biggest liar and loser, ever.
At least now I won't have to read your old "we determine those things after design has been detected" because now I know you don't give a shit about when design was implemented or how.
If that is what you think then you are bigger ignoramus than I thought.
But thank you for continuing to prove that you are a pathological liar and a coward
Post a Comment
<< Home