Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

core error - bus dumped


tech / sci.math / 16 May 2022: New visitors to sci.math: Laughing at mainstream Cantor Cranks.

SubjectAuthor
o 16 May 2022: New visitors to sci.math: Laughing at mainstream Cantor Cranks.Eram semper recta

1
16 May 2022: New visitors to sci.math: Laughing at mainstream Cantor Cranks.

<eb2f4399-50eb-447e-af84-a7bb6c6708bdn@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/tech/article-flat.php?id=100192&group=sci.math#100192

 copy link   Newsgroups: sci.math
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:262d:b0:45a:9e7d:d16 with SMTP id gv13-20020a056214262d00b0045a9e7d0d16mr13903427qvb.4.1652676859686;
Sun, 15 May 2022 21:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:5546:0:b0:64a:a5c5:7c34 with SMTP id
j67-20020a255546000000b0064aa5c57c34mr16217263ybb.154.1652676859500; Sun, 15
May 2022 21:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fdn.fr!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 15 May 2022 21:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:587:b435:1f00:3c13:c4d9:77ee:2c45;
posting-account=I6O9nAoAAABb1i1LpKMPS-CPmVJHIbyE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:587:b435:1f00:3c13:c4d9:77ee:2c45
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <eb2f4399-50eb-447e-af84-a7bb6c6708bdn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: 16 May 2022: New visitors to sci.math: Laughing at mainstream Cantor Cranks.
From: thenewca...@gmail.com (Eram semper recta)
Injection-Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 04:54:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 by: Eram semper recta - Mon, 16 May 2022 04:54 UTC

Jews are the smartest conmen on the planet. You may believe that Donald Trump holds this dishonour, but in fact it was perfected by my Jewish ancestors thousands of years ago. They understood the benefit of repeating a lie over and over again.

"I'm not disputing that you can represent 1/3 as an infinitely long decimal
string 0.333.....

What I'm disputing is that you can produce an enumeration of the nodes of
your tree which will ever include that string. The fact that you've
got a representation for the real numbers does not imply that you've
got an enumeration of the real numbers. Your representation is
not enumerable." - Mark Chu Carroll

https://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2010/02/04/so-remember-back-in

On the one hand, Carroll imagines that 0.333... is a *representation* and *enumeration* of some mythical infinite decimal string, but on the other hand tree nodes (which include "enumeration" since each node has a unique identifier) are NEITHER a representation NOR an enumeration. HA, HA, HA.

The Swiss idiot Leonhard Euler claimed that there exists an n such that 0 = 1/(3 x 10^n):

https://www.academia.edu/45001199/Mainstream_mathematics_professors_are_incorrigibly_stupid_creatures_who_cannot_be_corrected

Mainstream cranks smell this shit and smear it all over their faces.

You cannot win when arguing with cranks.

*A crank is one who cannot be convinced in the face of overwhelming evidence*

If you think that there are Jews who don't know the truth, think again! There are many who agree with me! Unfortunately, the majority are vile cowards and won't step forth because of reprisals.

Cantor was the father of ALL mainstream mathematical cranks.

https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4

How can any honest academic with a peanut brain claim otherwise? Even so, the baboons cling to these beliefs because the pile of shit mathematics they have formulated rests on these false premises.

It's not just that his Diagonal "Argument" is absolute drivel, but he was confined to a sanitarium because he literary was a nutcase.

Some time ago I gave the imbeciles on this forum a quiz:

So how did Cantor get the idea that the set N={1,2,3,4,...} is countable? And what exactly does "countable" mean?

Test your knowledge before we investigate what countable means, by choosing the one correct answer:

1. N is countable because it contains natural numbers.

2. N is countable because you can count the elements.

3. N is countable because each element has a unique name.

4. N is countable because every element has an ordinal value.

So, what do you think is the ONLY correct answer?

And now, I reveal the entire answer.

There is a lot of confusion among many set theorists and topologists regarding what it means exactly for a set to be countable.

I will explain in detail how our delusional Cantor came upon the idea and then show you a very simple way to determine whether a set is countable, by defining it in one simple sentence.

While there are those who try to distinguish between finite and infinite sets, there really is ZERO difference in the definition of countable. For example, http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Countable_set.html tries to distinguish between countable finite and infinite sets.

As you shall shortly see, our young Cantor, being the abstract learner that he was (I can't think of many Jews who are constructive learners! I myself am an abstract learner too), loved to imagine. I love to imagine also, except what I imagine is real, but the same can't always be said for Cantor or his stooges/followers.

Cantor knew that he could name every element of a finite set (duh, because it's finite!), but he fantasized about being able to name every element of an infinite set. The *need to name* each element, was of paramount importance in his mind, for without this ability, he could not well define the concept of set. After all, what use is a set, if its contents cannot be identified? Of course this is perfectly valid reasoning, since Cantor had not yet lost his marbles.

In due time, he experienced an epiphany concerning certain sets. Cantor soon realized that every member of the set of natural numbers already had a NAME! How is this possible? No, he was not thinking of 1, 2, 3, etc as most of you imbeciles would think. You can only count so far, before you run out of names, e.g. what do you call 234, 475, 573, 488, 111, 352 followed by a Googleplex of zeroes?

Well, you call it by the digits that are used in the given radix system, which is always a UNIQUE identifier! Voila! Cantor thought in terms of binary at first, but there is no difference between any radix system that is used, i.e. the representation is always UNIQUE. It is this representation that he adopted as the NAME of each element. (*)

Using this scheme, he could write down as many elements as he desired, by means of their names (not an index). The process of writing down elements or listing them came to be known under many different terms: representation, enumeration, denumeration, etc. However, all he meant was that the elements could be listed!

So now, Cantor had the means to list as many elements of the infinite set of natural numbers as he desired. The realization that he could list the set of integers and rational numbers soon followed. The inevitable happened next: what about real numbers? Could he name every real number? Well, had he known about Gabriel's decimal tree, he would have soon realised that provided one assumes real numbers can all be represented as decimals (as Cantor did foolishly assume!), then it too would be possible to list these also. Unfortunately, he resorted to the use of sophistry, which is clearly evident in his flawed Diagonal Argument.

You see, representation is nine tenths of enumeration (NAMING the elements).. How can anyone name objects that can't be represented? Ludicrous of course! So in our young handsome Jew's mind, the real numbers could not be listed. In fact, the real numbers can't actually be listed for two reasons: (a) they don't exist. (b) not all magnitudes and incommensurable magnitudes can be represented in decimal.

How did the idea of a one-to-one correspondence come about? A little reasoning reveals immediately that the idea was created solely for the purpose of teaching these somewhat complex concepts to constructive learners (read as: idiots like virgil, port563, dan christensen and aliases). See, there is really no need for any set to be in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, in order to be considered countable.

The only criteria, is that a set must contain elements that can be listed, given the importance of using unique names. The word bijection did not even exist until 1963. Did you know that?! :-) However, using the idea of bijection makes it easier to determine whether a given set is countable or not. In other words, making the concepts easier to learn for constructive learners.

To be sure, if all the elements of an infinite set have NAMES, then the set is countable. Another way of saying this, is that if the elements can be listed or written down, the set is countable. In fact, this is the ONLY criteria Cantor uses in his flawed Diagonal Argument. What this means is that his argument is clearly defeated by Gabriel's tree without a further enumeration process as I demonstrated by creating an INDEX set, which I then showed to be of the same cardinality (note that cardinality plays any role whatsoever in a countable set) as the set of natural numbers.

And now let's examine the questions posed in the Quiz:

The first option is FALSE. A set is not countable because it contains natural numbers. It is countable because its members can be listed. For example, the set {knife, fork, spoon} is countable, but none of its members are natural numbers.

The second option is also FALSE because 'counting' elements has NOTHING to do with a set being countable.

The last option is FALSE because sets can contain elements that do not have ordinal values. Again, {knife, fork, spoon} is one such set. The example set can be assigned ordinal values, but that does not affect the outcome.

*****************************************************************************
The correct answer is OPTION 3, that is, a set is countable if, and only if, each element has a UNIQUE NAME, that is, each element can be systematically listed or written down.
*****************************************************************************

In an old video (https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4) I showed that the so-called set of reals is denumerable by including a secondary enumeration in the form of an index set. Most of you are absolute imbeciles and would not have seen the result if I had done it any other way. Mark Chu Carroll is a fine example.

Carroll knew that he was being reeled in as a fish from the water. Without realizing it, Carroll had already agreed that all the real numbers were in fact in my tree, and consequently they had ALREADY been LISTED!

Carroll began to flounder, and suggested that 1/3 was not in my tree, which is rather funny because the moron on the one hand claimed that 1/3 = 0.333... and then on the other hand claimed that such a representation could not exist in my tree "because you can't visit the last node" (sic). Somehow in the stupid Jew fuck's brain, 0.333... means the ALL the 3s are there, but not in my tree!

Well, as you can see, this is obviously untrue.

Finally, I hope that you will take a couple of weeks to learn my New Calculus! All you need is a basic high school knowledge of mathematics. In fact, it is better if you have not studied any college math at all.


Click here to read the complete article
1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor