How NOT to Debate a Topic, by Jerad the Coward
-
When debating someone it is never a good idea to try to use that which is being debated to try to win the debate. It is really the most stupid thing you could try. And in a formal debate you would be laughed off of the stage.
So why does UK Jerad think it's a good idea to use what is being debated to try to settle the debate? Cuz he says that I am the only one disputing it! Never mind that is total bullshit. But even if true it does NOT matter. You have to be a cowardly loser and retard to do what Jerad does and yet he thinks it makes me look foolish.
When debating someone it is never a good idea to try to use that which is being debated to try to win the debate. It is really the most stupid thing you could try. And in a formal debate you would be laughed off of the stage.
So why does UK Jerad think it's a good idea to use what is being debated to try to settle the debate? Cuz he says that I am the only one disputing it! Never mind that is total bullshit. But even if true it does NOT matter. You have to be a cowardly loser and retard to do what Jerad does and yet he thinks it makes me look foolish.
posted by Joe G @ 5:39 PM
2 Comments:
At 10:35 PM,
Eugen said…
If he's going to be like that and he's from UK he can't travel to US from today. That'll show him :D
Just joking, could you post a link to the debate?
At 11:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Start here
In set theory Cantor says that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. As
"proof" he offers up bijection. My dispute pertains to infinity. In physics and mathematics I have always been taught that infinity is a journey. It isn't a number. You start and never stop. Never meaning you go for infinity.
Jerad doesn't understand the terminology and argued that "for or into infinity" isn't correct.
Moving on- the dispute is about what Cantor said. I am looking at the problem as a relativist. Meaning, as a journey with a start and no end you can form a thought experiment: Two counters, A and B, A counts every second and B counts every other second. Counter A, relative to counter B, will always and forever, into infinity, have more elements/ counts than counter B. At every point in time. Counter B will never catch counter A.
So, instead of saying that the cardinalities are equal, my method uses the bijective function to determine it.
I am not saying there are different infinities. I am saying there is one infinity but different population densities. Two people per room in the Hilbert Hotel vs one. Our intuition with respect to such sets is correct.
The real problem arises because there aren't any real world applications that use the concept that all countably infinite sets have the same cardinality. It is a useless concept. If we could apply the concept then that would be the real proof of who is correct.
And the point is JVL is using Cantor's concept, the very one that I am disputing, to win the dispute.
Post a Comment
<< Home