A Note for Jerad, the Asshole Wanker

EvoTARDs are so clueless. For example I say that saying two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality is useless and worthless. It doesn't give us anything and doesn't help us solve anything.
To that evoTARDs, Jerad included, say that Set Theory is faundamental to mathematics!
Yet I am not talking about the whole of set theory, just one tiny insignifant part of it. Strange that those morons cannot grap such a simple fact soi they have to try to bullshit their way to some sort of refutation. That is because in reality they are mathematical dolts.
Jerad wants me to watch lectures on Set Theory. Unfortunately it is obvious that no lectures even touch on the subject I am discussing. No one on this planet can tell me the use of saying two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality even though it is obvious that one set has more elements than the other when using the standard counting method.
EvoTARDs are so clueless. For example I say that saying two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality is useless and worthless. It doesn't give us anything and doesn't help us solve anything.
To that evoTARDs, Jerad included, say that Set Theory is faundamental to mathematics!
Yet I am not talking about the whole of set theory, just one tiny insignifant part of it. Strange that those morons cannot grap such a simple fact soi they have to try to bullshit their way to some sort of refutation. That is because in reality they are mathematical dolts.
Jerad wants me to watch lectures on Set Theory. Unfortunately it is obvious that no lectures even touch on the subject I am discussing. No one on this planet can tell me the use of saying two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality even though it is obvious that one set has more elements than the other when using the standard counting method.
36 Comments:
At 9:47 AM, Unknown said…
I just tried to answer your questions and figure out how your method worked. Don't blame me if you don't like the answers or can't be bothered to figure out what they mean or what their implications are.
Some things can't be just distilled down to a sentence or two and then spoonfed to someone. Sometimes, if you want to know some things, you have to do some work.
And calling names and using profanity is hardly the way to win an argument.
At 10:09 AM, Joe G said…
Jerad,
My method works by actually counting the elements of the set.
And nice of you to avoid the OP at all costs coward.
At 12:17 PM, Unknown said…
Well, I figured since you've pretty much ignored most of the answers I've given you AND you didn't respond to the seeming contradictions I raised in your method on another thread that I could just speak my mind.
Anyway, have fun with your notions of the largest known number and the largest number (both of which don't exist but hey, if you haven't got any real friends then imaginary ones will have to do).
It's too bad you're the only person I've ever met who thinks that way but you can't answer some questions about. Guess you'd better think about it some more 'cause if you can't use your method then it ain't gonna get used. You gotta come up with the goods if you want to 'win'.
At 1:47 PM, Joe G said…
1 You didn't provide any answers to the question at hand namely what good is it to say that two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality.
2 The alleged contradictions exist only in your mind
3 Have fun with your notions of infinity it doesn't exist excpt for in some people's minds
4 My method can be used by anyone who can use a number line strange that you have difficulties with it.
At 2:28 PM, Unknown said…
"1 You didn't provide any answers to the question at hand namely what good is it to say that two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality."
It's foundational to Set Theory which is foundational to lots of areas of mathematics.
"2 The alleged contradictions exist only in your mind"
Too bad you didn't address them directly.
"3 Have fun with your notions of infinity it doesn't exist excpt for in some people's minds"
Does that mean you don't think 1/x^2 approaches infinity as x approaches zero?
"4 My method can be used by anyone who can use a number line strange that you have difficulties with it."
But you can't handle some situations like:
Which set is larger; the set of all prime number or the postitive integer multiples of 12?
Nor can can you say whether the reals or the integers have greater cardinality. Can you?
Maybe you should stop bragging and start showing some things.
At 2:48 PM, Joe G said…
"1 You didn't provide any answers to the question at hand namely what good is it to say that two countable and infinite sets have the same cardinality."
It's foundational to Set Theory...
Bullshit. Strange that you cannot tell me what use it is.
Too bad you didn't address them directly.
Sed the asshole who cannot address my methdology directly.
Does that mean you don't think 1/x^2 approaches infinity as x approaches zero?
Does that mean your little mind cannot handle really, really large (or small) numbers that you have to invent infinity?
But you can't handle some situations like:
Perhaps you can't.
Which set is larger; the set of all prime number or the postitive integer multiples of 12?
Why can't my methodology figure that out?
If you want me to do it then pay me. Or do it yourself, Mr MS math.
Nor can can you say whether the reals or the integers have greater cardinality.
Same question why do you think my methodology doesn't work?
My methodology would say the real have a greater cardinality. The reals contain the intergers and have members the integers do not.
Maybe you should stop bragging and start showing some things.
What bragging? And all you need to see is a number line and then the sets involved.
At 6:22 PM, Unknown said…
"Bullshit. Strange that you cannot tell me what use it is."
Strange you can't bother to read a webpage. Oh well, just lazy I guess.
"Sed the asshole who cannot address my methdology directly."
Strange you haven't answered many questions I have asked you about your methodology.
"Does that mean your little mind cannot handle really, really large (or small) numbers that you have to invent infinity?"
Oh I can handle very large number easily. But 1/x^2 can beat any number you propose as x gets closer and closer to zero and that is something you are NOT addressing.
" 'Which set is larger; the set of all prime number or the postitive integer multiples of 12?'
Why can't my methodology figure that out?"
Great, then handle it.
"If you want me to do it then pay me. Or do it yourself, Mr MS math."
I'm happy to tell you my answer, for free. The question is: can you answer it? And you seemingly can't.
"My methodology would say the real have a greater cardinality. The reals contain the intergers and have members the integers do not."
So, the cardinality of the real numbers is greater than the cardinaly of the integers? Yes? Just like Cantor said?
So the real numbers and the intergers are both infinitee sets. The cardinality of the reals is greater. What about the cardinaloty of the rational numbers? Where does that fit in?
At 6:39 PM, Joe G said…
Strange you can't bother to read a webpage.
LoL! There isn't any webpage that has the answer to the question I am asking.
Strange you haven't answered many questions I have asked you about your methodology.
My methodology involves COUNTING using a NUMBER LINE and the sets' members' actual place along that line.
But 1/x^2 can beat any number you propose as x gets closer and closer to zero and that is something you are NOT addressing.
Well I keep hearing that infinity is not a number and only a larger NUMBER can beat a large NUMBER.
I'm happy to tell you my answer, for free.
I know your "answer" and it amounts to nothing more than throwing your hands up and saying they are equal!
Nice job.
So, the cardinality of the real numbers is greater than the cardinaly of the integers? Yes? Just like Cantor said?
Just like my methodology said.
What about the cardinaloty of the rational numbers? Where does that fit in?
Up your ass?
At 1:06 AM, Unknown said…
"LoL! There isn't any webpage that has the answer to the question I am asking."
Uh huh. Why do you ask me for explanations then not bother to read what I have pointed you towards? I think you should stop saying no one has established the importance of Cantor's work until you at least try and read about it.
" 'But 1/x^2 can beat any number you propose as x gets closer and closer to zero and that is something you are NOT addressing.'
Well I keep hearing that infinity is not a number and only a larger NUMBER can beat a large NUMBER."
True, but when a sequence or function can meet or beat any number you specify then we say it approached infinity. Try and keep up.
"I know your "answer" and it amounts to nothing more than throwing your hands up and saying they are equal!"
So, you still can't answer some of my questions.
" 'What about the cardinaloty of the rational numbers? Where does that fit in?'
Up your ass?"
Nope, wrong answer. You're not going to pass your final exam at this rate.
At 7:24 AM, Joe G said…
I think you should stop saying no one has established the importance of Cantor's work until you at least try and read about it.
You are just a fucking asshole, Jerad.
I am only talking about one tiony and obvioulsy insignificant part of his "work" you fucking moron. And you take that as an attack on all of his stuff. YOU are a fuck head.
True, but when a sequence or function can meet or beat any number you specify then we say it approached infinity.
So it approaches something that doesn't exist?
So, you still can't answer some of my questions.
Your "quetions" don't seem to be relevant and you have serious issues with following along.
You're not going to pass your final exam at this rate.
LoL! YOU aren't in any position to give anyone any exam and you have already failed.
At 7:46 AM, Joe G said…
An anaology of Jerad's reponse:
Joe "Hugo's suck for a car."
Jerad "No! Cars are very important for humans! You don't know what you are talking about!"
Joe "Jerad, I am just talking about one type of car, the Hugo."
Jerad "No Joe, if you think that cars suck then you don't know what you are talking about."
Joe "Jerad I am only talking about the Hugo, not all cars."
Jerad "The Hugo is a car and fundamental to all cars is that they are valued transportation. Cars do not suck, Joe."
Joe "The Hugo sucks Jerad."
Jerad "I suggest that you read up on cars and see how they are vital to humans."
Joe "The HUGO, Jerad, I am only talking about the Hugo..."
At 7:48 AM, Joe G said…
I think you should stop saying no one has established the importance of Cantor's work until you at least try and read about it.
No one has established any importance wrt saying that all countable and infinite sets are the same size. And Jerad is an asshole for trying to change that into an attack on all of set theory. That's because Jerad is he of the little brain...
At 9:30 AM, Unknown said…
"I am only talking about one tiony and obvioulsy insignificant part of his "work" you fucking moron. And you take that as an attack on all of his stuff. YOU are a fuck head."
If you think it's an insignificant part of Cantor's work then you clearly don't understand his work.
"Hugo's suck for a car."
You mean Yugos I trust. You don't need an apostrophe there either.
"No one has established any importance wrt saying that all countable and infinite sets are the same size. And Jerad is an asshole for trying to change that into an attack on all of set theory. That's because Jerad is he of the little brain…"
Don't blame me if you don't understand the ramifications and implications and importance. And don't blame me if you can't be bothered to do some reading and find out the importance.
You just don't really understand Set Theory.
At 10:13 AM, Joe G said…
If you think it's an insignificant part of Cantor's work then you clearly don't understand his work.
Fuck you assface. Your false accusations mean nothing to me.
Don't blame me if you don't understand the ramifications and implications and importance.
Don't blame me because YOU and everyone else are too stupid to explain the importance.
You just don't understand anything.
At 5:34 PM, Unknown said…
"Fuck you assface. Your false accusations mean nothing to me."
But you clearly don't understand the significance or importance of Cantor's work especially regarding discussions about cardinality. And you resort to profanity instead of reasoned arguments.
"Don't blame me because YOU and everyone else are too stupid to explain the importance."
Don't blame us if you insist on everything being explained at a 4th grade level to you without you bothering to do any work to try and understand the material.
"You just don't understand anything."
You are entitled to your opinion. Whether or not it's worth anything is another matter.
Getting a bunch of us to argue with you and, therefore, make your argumetns look imporatant can backfire on you. If you end up looking like someone who can't be bothered to do some work in an attempt to understand basic Set Theory concepts then you will probably find yourself a major focus of derision.
At 7:06 PM, Joe G said…
But you clearly don't understand the significance or importance of Cantor's work especially regarding discussions about cardinality.
You're clearly an asshole who doesn't know anything.
Don't blame us if you insist on everything being explained at a 4th grade level to you without you bothering to do any work to try and understand the material.
It hasn't been explained at all. YOU just keep avoiduing the question and instead you create a strawman.
And your opinion means nothing, Jerad. And your continued false accusations prove taht you have nothing.
At 5:40 PM, Unknown said…
"And your opinion means nothing, Jerad. And your continued false accusations prove taht you have nothing."
And why should you 'opinions' carry more weight than mine?
How are my objections false?
Where is your support amongst the academic community? Upon what body of work can you find support for your views?
It's not just a matter of coming up with something and assuming you're right and everyone else it wrong. I might be the case that you ARE right and you've found some new and correct paradigm. But you have to prove it. You have to defend it. You have to argue your case in the public mathematical forum. And if your idea runs counter to over a century of accepted theorems then you can espect to face a large amount of criticism.
If you can't be bothered or are incapable of defending you ideas then you will not be taken seriously. And you can stand on the sideline and make as big a fuss as you like but the game will go on without you unless you can prove that you can abide by the rules. And you're not doing that.
And you will be ignored. And, in this case, justifiably so.
At 7:58 PM, Joe G said…
How are my objections false?
For one you don't even deal with my methodology and you just keep repeating the norm. And you withhave yet to say what advantage it has to call two countable and infinite sets equal in size.
If you can't be bothered or are incapable of defending you ideas then you will not be taken seriously.
I have defended myself and that is why I don't take you seriously.
And I don't care about games, just reality.
At 4:37 PM, Unknown said…
"And I don't care about games, just reality."
Great, here's a real question: if you have a square that's exactly 1 unit long on a side what is the length of the diagonal?
At 4:37 PM, Joe G said…
Try it start at 0 and count every nonnegative integer with one counter and every positive even integer with another. The counter counting the nonnegative integers will always be at least 2x that as the other counter, ie it will always have more elements ALWAYS as long as infinity exists and especially when infinity ceases to exist.
And no one can demonstrate otherwise. All Jerad can do is act like the little whiny baby that he is.
At 5:02 PM, Unknown said…
So you think not answering your own challenges and declarations you can win? I don't think so.
What is the smallest element in (0, 1)?
What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }
What is the length of the diagonal of a unit square?
Bluff and bluster all you like. If you can't answer these questions then your system is useless.
At 5:07 PM, Joe G said…
What is the smallest element in (0, 1)?
Whatever the first number above zero is.
What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }
However many elements are in the set.
What is the length of the diagonal of a unit square?
Whatever it measures out to be.
If you want better answers then pay me. YOU can't even count for fuck's sake. And you sure as hell cannot tell me the exact number for teh square root of 2.
At 5:30 PM, Unknown said…
" ;What is the smallest element in (0, 1)?'
Whatever the first number above zero is."
Non answer. Do you know what it is or don't you?
" 'What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }'
However many elements are in the set."
Which is??
" 'What is the length of the diagonal of a unit square?'
Whatever it measures out to be."
And what do you say that will be?
"If you want better answers then pay me. YOU can't even count for fuck's sake. And you sure as hell cannot tell me the exact number for teh square root of 2."
I'd rather pay the people who can answer those questions.
At 5:42 PM, Joe G said…
Jerad,
Whether or not I know the values has no effect on their existence.
And 2, being a prime number, is only divisible by 1 and itself.
And measuring a line all depends on the unit of measure. Do you really think that carpenters have problems measuring between two pieces of wood?
Ya see Jerad, if you have 2 finite end points then there will be a finite distance between them.
At 5:51 PM, Unknown said…
"Whether or not I know the values has no effect on their existence."
But if you think it exists then you should be able to show that. By producing the number.
"And 2, being a prime number, is only divisible by 1 and itself."
So, only whole numbers that are perfect squares have a square root? So the Pythogorean theorem is mostly useless? And Trigonometry? That's crap too?
"And measuring a line all depends on the unit of measure. Do you really think that carpenters have problems measuring between two pieces of wood?"
Nope, I have no trouble with real world approximations. But you haven't answered any of the questions. Maybe you can't.
"Ya see Jerad, if you have 2 finite end points then there will be a finite distance between them."
And how does that answer any of the following questions?
What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . }
What is the smallest element of (0, 1)? Your own assertion.
What is the exact length of the diagonal of a unit square?
At 10:55 PM, Joe G said…
But if you think it exists then you should be able to show that. By producing the number.
It has to exist. Or else the definition of a number line is wrong and totally misleading.
"And 2, being a prime number, is only divisible by 1 and itself."
So, only whole numbers that are perfect squares have a square root?
Non answer.
So the Pythogorean theorem is mostly useless? And Trigonometry? That's crap too?
To you, absolutely. However that doesn't follow from what I have posted.
And still no exact number for the square root of 2...
At 1:12 AM, Unknown said…
"It has to exist. Or else the definition of a number line is wrong and totally misleading."
Okay, then what is it? You don't know and you can't find it. So you're stuck. You won't back down and you can't figure out what the number is.
" 'So, only whole numbers that are perfect squares have a square root?'
Non answer."
A question for you that was not meant to be an answer. Try and pay attention. And try and answer questions about your methods.
"'So the Pythogorean theorem is mostly useless? And Trigonometry? That's crap too?'
To you, absolutely. However that doesn't follow from what I have posted."
I believe what the Pythagorean theorem and Trigonometry tell me: that there is a number root 2 that is the diagonal of a unit square. And that root 2 has no finite decimal expansion because it's an irrational number. But you don't believe such numbers exist despite the fact that mathematicians have known they exist for 2000 years.
"And still no exact number for the square root of 2…"
Do you even read the answers people provide for you? I guess not. And you never seem to get around to answering some questions that you say have solutions.
What is the cardinality of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . } ?
And, since you brought it up, what is the cardinality of {1, ½, ¼, ⅛ . . . . } ?
What is the smallest element in (0, 1) ?
What is the length of the diagonal of a unit circle?
If your methods cannot answer those questions then your methods are pretty crap.
At 9:15 AM, Joe G said…
Jerad,
Until you pay me I am not interested in your childish games.
And that root 2 has no finite decimal expansion because it's an irrational number.
Which means it ain't a number, dumbass. And it's irrational because only irrational people would attempt to find it mathematically.
At 9:39 AM, Unknown said…
"Until you pay me I am not interested in your childish games."
Choke.
" 'And that root 2 has no finite decimal expansion because it's an irrational number. '
Which means it ain't a number, dumbass. And it's irrational because only irrational people would attempt to find it mathematically."
JoeMath can't handle irrational numbers. In fact, we're not sure, but it might be that JoeMath can't figure out what irrational numbers are.
At 9:53 AM, Joe G said…
Still too much of a pussy to ante up, eh Jerad....
At 11:59 AM, Unknown said…
"Still too much of a pussy to ante up, eh Jerad…."
It's not my fault you can't handle nonrational numbers even after they've been explained to you. Over 2000 years ago people figured them out. Too bad you didn't keep up.
AND, even though you don't understand my answers I have tried to address your questions. But you can't even bother to defend some of your own statements. You keep hoping I'll forget or get sidetracked by your profanity or attemps to divert the issue.
What's the smallest number in (0, 1) ? You say it exists but, funnily enough, JoeMath can't find it.
How do the cardinalities of {1, ½, ⅓, ¼ . . . .} and {1, 2, 3, 4 . . . } compare? They're sets, they have cardinalities. Do they have the same cardinality? Are they different? Don't forget now: cardinality isn't about the elements of the set just how many of them there are. Didn't want to hear your "itls like comparing apples and oranges" gaffe again.
Go on, you can at least tell me what you measure the diagonal of a unit square to be and then see if your answer satisfies the Pythagorean theorem and the rules of Trigonometry. We've pretty much figured out that you never really took any set theory 'cause you didn't even know aleph0 or alephnought but surely you do know the Pythagorean theorem and basic rules of trig? Surely you can handle 1/sin(45). And give me an exact answer.
Oh and, while you're at it, what's the circumference of a unit circle? Exactly. Draw one and measure it. Does the locus of points that form the circle form an infinite set? Not if they have a 'thickness' I suppose. So, how many points does it take to form a unit circle? 100? 1000? 10,000?
Oh, here's another good one. You'll like this: 11 and 13 are called a prime pair 'cause they are only 2 apart. Are there infinitely many prime pairs? I'm gussing you'll say it's a meaningless question 'cause there's no such thing as infinity and beyond that which we can handle in some finite time is stupid. Which is such a limited view point. But, I guess if you can't handle infinity they you gotta stay in your finite box.
I like this one. Take the function f(x) = 1/x from x = 1 onwards and rotate it about the xaxis. Kind of looks like one of those medieval trumpets. Now, what is the surface area and what is the volume? You took a calculus class so you should be able to handle that. It's a pretty basic thing really. If you know what you're doing.
At 4:28 PM, Joe G said…
Still too much of a pussy to ante up jerad?
And people didn't figure out irrational numbers. THAT is teh whole point you moron.
At 5:26 PM, Unknown said…
"Still too much of a pussy to ante up jerad?"
This from someone who can't even address their own assertion. Oh wow. I'm really intimidated now.
"And people didn't figure out irrational numbers. THAT is teh whole point you moron."
Nice that you can deny documented history so easily. That is a real talent. I'm not sure what use it is but perhaps you should check with the climate change deniers and the ID crowd to see if they can use someone with your abilities.
At 2:19 AM, Unknown said…
"Still too much of a pussy to ante up jerad?"
I'm good. I explained things. You didn't understand them. You can't handle irrational numbers, that's clear. You can't handle cardinal numbers, that's clear. I'm just happy here in the 21st century, have fun in the Iron Age.
"And people didn't figure out irrational numbers. THAT is teh whole point you moron."
JoeMaths, stuck in the Iron Age. You've got a lot of catching up to do.
At 1:18 PM, Joe G said…
Dear Jerad,
Seeing that you are too stupid to understand that the faster the rate of count means that more elements will be counted and that more elements means a greater cardinality, perhaps mathematics isn’t your thing and you just should shut up.
At 3:15 PM, Unknown said…
"Seeing that you are too stupid to understand that the faster the rate of count means that more elements will be counted and that more elements means a greater cardinality, perhaps mathematics isn’t your thing and you just should shut up."
A note to all subscribers: due to intellectual difficulties beyond our control responses to comments will now be handled by an automated system. We couldn't afford the expensive AI simulator. We got something from a company called JoeMath.
Post a Comment
<< Home