https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument

tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.

I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.

Has nothing to do with a "bijection".

To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.

Eat shit and die.

onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:41:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
>
> Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
>
> To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
>
> Eat shit and die.
Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.

On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 18:43:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:41:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> >
> > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> >
> > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> >
> > Eat shit and die.
> Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.

If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.

Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.

Get help soon.

torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:16:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 18:43:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:41:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > >
> > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > >
> > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > >
> > > Eat shit and die.
> > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
>
> Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
>
> Get help soon.
Why would I need help?

Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 08:44:06 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:16:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 18:43:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:41:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > >
> > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > >
> > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > >
> > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> >
> > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> >
> > Get help soon.
> Why would I need help?

Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!

>
> Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?

It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.

A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.

The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals..

As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.

For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.

You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.

Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree..

torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 17:25:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 08:44:06 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:16:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 18:43:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:41:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > >
> > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > >
> > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > >
> > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > >
> > > Get help soon.
> > Why would I need help?
> Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> >
> > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
>
> A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
>
> The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
>
> As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
>
> For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
>
> You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
>
> Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.

I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.

That's the definition of countibility.

Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition. The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 12:04:02 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 17:25:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 08:44:06 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:16:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 18:43:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:41:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > >
> > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > >
> > > > Get help soon.
> > > Why would I need help?
> > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > >
> > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> >
> > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> >
> > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> >
> > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> >
> > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> >
> > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> >
> > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.

Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.

>
> I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.

Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.

0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.

>
> Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.

Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.

> The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.

No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...

On 8/3/2023 5:44 AM, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:16:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 18:43:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:41:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
>>>>>> https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
>>>>> You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
>>>> I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
>>>>
>>>> Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
>>>>
>>>> To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
>>>>
>>>> Eat shit and die.
>>> Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
>> If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
>>
>> Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
>>
>> Get help soon.
> Why would I need help?
>
> Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?

1/1, 1/2, 1/3, ...

The third unit fraction.

torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 21:01:21 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 12:04:02 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 17:25:33 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 08:44:06 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > torsdag 3 augusti 2023 kl. 13:16:22 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 18:43:05 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > onsdag 2 augusti 2023 kl. 00:41:42 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 13:37:25 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > tisdag 1 augusti 2023 kl. 14:02:45 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > >
> > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > Why would I need help?
> > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > >
> > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > >
> > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > >
> > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > >
> > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > >
> > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > >
> > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > >
> > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> >
> > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree..
>
> 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> >
> > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.

You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:38:39 UTC-4, marku
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking.. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > >
> > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > >
> > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > >
> > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > >
> > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > >
> > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > >
> > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > >
> > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > >
> > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> >
> > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > >
> > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.

That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.

>
> You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.

Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,

fredag 4 augusti 2023 kl. 00:49:18 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:38:39 UTC-4, marku
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > >
> > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > >
> > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > > >
> > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > >
> > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > >
> > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > >
> > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.
> That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> >
> > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.

Every real number must correspond to a natural number, which isn't true. So you haven't found a bijection and haven't proved R is countable.

The diagonalization proof shows this isn't possible.

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 18:57:55 UTC-4, markus...@g
> > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:38:39 UTC-4, marku
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to..
> > > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > > >
> > > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > > >
> > > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.
> > That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> > >
> > > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> > Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
> I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.

You can't. It's not a formal definition but then again, Cantor was not a genius. I am. You on the other hand, are a moron.

If you think you can name every element of R, then do it here, you lying blowhard idiot!

YES, it and it alone makes a set countable. N has this special property that all its elements can be named uniquely in a given radix system. This is not possible with the imaginary set R.

<drivel>

fredag 4 augusti 2023 kl. 13:30:32 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 18:57:55 UTC-4, markus...@g
> > > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:38:39 UTC-4, marku
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > > > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.
> > > That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> > > >
> > > > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> > > Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
> > I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.
> You can't. It's not a formal definition but then again, Cantor was not a genius. I am. You on the other hand, are a moron.
>
> If you think you can name every element of R, then do it here, you lying blowhard idiot!
>
> YES, it and it alone makes a set countable. N has this special property that all its elements can be named uniquely in a given radix system. This is not possible with the imaginary set R.
>
> <drivel>
Every real number can be named by its full decimal expansion, for example. A decimal expansion uniquely defines a real number.

But 'being named" isn't mathematics since you haven't given a formal definition for that.

You haven't proved the reals are countable because you do not have a bijection. 🥸

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:48:33 UTC-4, markus.
> > > > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:38:39 UTC-4, marku
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333.... is in my tree.
> > > > > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > > > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > > > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > > > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > > > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > > > > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.
> > > > That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> > > > >
> > > > > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> > > > Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
> > > I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.
> > You can't. It's not a formal definition but then again, Cantor was not a genius. I am. You on the other hand, are a moron.
> >
> > If you think you can name every element of R, then do it here, you lying blowhard idiot!
> >
> > YES, it and it alone makes a set countable. N has this special property that all its elements can be named uniquely in a given radix system. This is not possible with the imaginary set R.
> >
> > <drivel>
> Every real number can be named by its full decimal expansion, for example..

Put up or shut the fuck up, you stupid! Show how you can systematically name every real number using your "full" decimal expansions.

> A decimal expansion uniquely defines a real number.

No such thing as infinite decimal expansion, so no real number.

>
> But 'being named" isn't mathematics since you haven't given a formal definition for that.

You don't get to decide what is mathematics or not, you motherless fuck!
The definition I gave is 100% mathematics. The one you use (bijection with N) is for stupids like you and your professors.

>
> You haven't proved the reals are countable because you do not have a bijection. 🥸

Repeat this shit again and this discussion is also over. I don't have time for morons.

fredag 4 augusti 2023 kl. 22:46:35 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 15:48:33 UTC-4, markus.
> > > > > On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 17:38:39 UTC-4, marku
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > > > > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > > > > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > > > > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > > > > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > > > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > > > > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > > > > > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.
> > > > > That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> > > > > Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
> > > > I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.
> > > You can't. It's not a formal definition but then again, Cantor was not a genius. I am. You on the other hand, are a moron.
> > >
> > > If you think you can name every element of R, then do it here, you lying blowhard idiot!
> > >
> > > YES, it and it alone makes a set countable. N has this special property that all its elements can be named uniquely in a given radix system. This is not possible with the imaginary set R.
> > >
> > > <drivel>
> > Every real number can be named by its full decimal expansion, for example.
> Put up or shut the fuck up, you stupid! Show how you can systematically name every real number using your "full" decimal expansions.
> > A decimal expansion uniquely defines a real number.
> No such thing as infinite decimal expansion, so no real number.
> >
> > But 'being named" isn't mathematics since you haven't given a formal definition for that.
> You don't get to decide what is mathematics or not, you motherless fuck!
> The definition I gave is 100% mathematics. The one you use (bijection with N) is for stupids like you and your professors.
> >
> > You haven't proved the reals are countable because you do not have a bijection. 🥸
> Repeat this shit again and this discussion is also over. I don't have time for morons.
Well, you haven't really defined what "systematically name" means in formal logic. So I just have to guess. But every element of any set can be given a name, so every set is then "countable". In mathematics , we deal with exact and precise definitions. And you haven't given one. Which makes the whole conversation a bit meaningless.

In standard mathematics, being countable is a technical term with a very precise meaning: a set is countable if it can be injected into N (there is an injection of the set into N). You haven't proved this. You have proved that all real numbers with a finite decimal expansion are countable. Of course they are. They are infinitely many, and all rational numbers. Those two things are enough to conclude they must be countable.

But the set of all real numbers is not countable and you don't have a proof for that. For example, 1/3 isn't on your list since it doesn't correspond to a natural number.

I guess you are a hopelesss case, you will hot be able to
show π transcendent you suffer from set theory ignorance.
George Cantor entered set theory with this question.

Georg Cantor's First Set Theory Article
The title of the article, "On a Property of the Collection of
All Real Algebraic Numbers" ("Ueber eine Eigenschaft
des Inbegriffes aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen"), refers
to its first theorem: the set of real algebraic numbers is countable.

Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 1. August 2023 um 14:02:45 UTC+2:
> https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 16:59:30 UTC-4, markus...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > > > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > > > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > > > > > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > > > > > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > > > > > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > > > > > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > > > > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > > > > > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > > > > > > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.
> > > > > > That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> > > > > > Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
> > > > > I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.
> > > > You can't. It's not a formal definition but then again, Cantor was not a genius. I am. You on the other hand, are a moron.
> > > >
> > > > If you think you can name every element of R, then do it here, you lying blowhard idiot!
> > > >
> > > > YES, it and it alone makes a set countable. N has this special property that all its elements can be named uniquely in a given radix system. This is not possible with the imaginary set R.
> > > >
> > > > <drivel>
> > > Every real number can be named by its full decimal expansion, for example.
> > Put up or shut the fuck up, you stupid! Show how you can systematically name every real number using your "full" decimal expansions.
> > > A decimal expansion uniquely defines a real number.
> > No such thing as infinite decimal expansion, so no real number.
> > >
> > > But 'being named" isn't mathematics since you haven't given a formal definition for that.
> > You don't get to decide what is mathematics or not, you motherless fuck!
> > The definition I gave is 100% mathematics. The one you use (bijection with N) is for stupids like you and your professors.
> > >
> > > You haven't proved the reals are countable because you do not have a bijection. 🥸
> > Repeat this shit again and this discussion is also over. I don't have time for morons.
> Well, you haven't really defined what "systematically name" means in formal logic.

Sonny, I don't have time to teach you English in addition to mathematics. There are good dictionaries online. Try using them!

sys·tem·at·ic
adjective
done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.

Oxford dictionary.

What is quite laughable is that you claim to have a BS in math and you don't understand "systematically"! May be time for you to join Zelos Malum for some English classes? LMAO.

<repeated his drivel>

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 17:47:03 UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote:
> I guess you are a hopelesss case, you will hot be able to
> show π transcendent you suffer from set theory ignorance.

Jan Burse: We do not show π transcendent. We prove π to be transcendental constant.
Very important to say constant or constant number and not number by itself.

> George Cantor entered set theory ...

Cantor is the de facto father of all mainstream mathematical cranks.

https://www.academia.edu/78740399/Georg_Cantor_the_father_of_all_mainstream_mathematical_cranks

>
> Eram semper recta schrieb am Dienstag, 1. August 2023 um 14:02:45 UTC+2:
> > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument

On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:37:42 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:

> Cantor is the de facto father of all mainstream mathematical cranks.

Oh. So he's your father too?

lördag 5 augusti 2023 kl. 02:32:53 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 16:59:30 UTC-4, markus...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > > > > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > > > > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > > > > > > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > > > > > > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > > > > > > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > > > > > > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > > > > > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > > > > > > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > > > > > > > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion..
> > > > > > > That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> > > > > > > Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
> > > > > > I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.
> > > > > You can't. It's not a formal definition but then again, Cantor was not a genius. I am. You on the other hand, are a moron.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you think you can name every element of R, then do it here, you lying blowhard idiot!
> > > > >
> > > > > YES, it and it alone makes a set countable. N has this special property that all its elements can be named uniquely in a given radix system. This is not possible with the imaginary set R.
> > > > >
> > > > > <drivel>
> > > > Every real number can be named by its full decimal expansion, for example.
> > > Put up or shut the fuck up, you stupid! Show how you can systematically name every real number using your "full" decimal expansions.
> > > > A decimal expansion uniquely defines a real number.
> > > No such thing as infinite decimal expansion, so no real number.
> > > >
> > > > But 'being named" isn't mathematics since you haven't given a formal definition for that.
> > > You don't get to decide what is mathematics or not, you motherless fuck!
> > > The definition I gave is 100% mathematics. The one you use (bijection with N) is for stupids like you and your professors.
> > > >
> > > > You haven't proved the reals are countable because you do not have a bijection. 🥸
> > > Repeat this shit again and this discussion is also over. I don't have time for morons.
> > Well, you haven't really defined what "systematically name" means in formal logic.
> Sonny, I don't have time to teach you English in addition to mathematics. There are good dictionaries online. Try using them!
>
> sys·tem·at·ic
> adjective
> done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
>
> Oxford dictionary.
>
> What is quite laughable is that you claim to have a BS in math and you don't understand "systematically"! May be time for you to join Zelos Malum for some English classes? LMAO.
>
> <repeated his drivel>
What does "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system" mean FORMALLY?

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 20:51:07 UTC-4, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
> On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:37:42 AM UTC+2, Eram semper recta wrote:
>
>
> > Cantor is the de facto father of all mainstream mathematical cranks.
> Oh. So he's your father too?

That would mean we are brothers, heavens forbid! No. I do not subscribe to Cantor's garbage. You, OTH do!

On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:32:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> lördag 5 augusti 2023 kl. 02:32:53 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 16:59:30 UTC-4, markus...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > > > > > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > > > > > > > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > > > > > > > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > > > > > > > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > > > > > > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > > > > > > > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > > > > > > > > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.
> > > > > > > > That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> > > > > > > > Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
> > > > > > > I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.
> > > > > > You can't. It's not a formal definition but then again, Cantor was not a genius. I am. You on the other hand, are a moron.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you think you can name every element of R, then do it here, you lying blowhard idiot!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > YES, it and it alone makes a set countable. N has this special property that all its elements can be named uniquely in a given radix system. This is not possible with the imaginary set R.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > Every real number can be named by its full decimal expansion, for example.
> > > > Put up or shut the fuck up, you stupid! Show how you can systematically name every real number using your "full" decimal expansions.
> > > > > A decimal expansion uniquely defines a real number.
> > > > No such thing as infinite decimal expansion, so no real number.
> > > > >
> > > > > But 'being named" isn't mathematics since you haven't given a formal definition for that.
> > > > You don't get to decide what is mathematics or not, you motherless fuck!
> > > > The definition I gave is 100% mathematics. The one you use (bijection with N) is for stupids like you and your professors.
> > > > >
> > > > > You haven't proved the reals are countable because you do not have a bijection. 🥸
> > > > Repeat this shit again and this discussion is also over. I don't have time for morons.
> > > Well, you haven't really defined what "systematically name" means in formal logic.
> > Sonny, I don't have time to teach you English in addition to mathematics. There are good dictionaries online. Try using them!
> >
> > sys·tem·at·ic
> > adjective
> > done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
> >
> > Oxford dictionary.
> >
> > What is quite laughable is that you claim to have a BS in math and you don't understand "systematically"! May be time for you to join Zelos Malum for some English classes? LMAO.
> >
> > <repeated his drivel>
> What does "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system" mean FORMALLY?

lördag 5 augusti 2023 kl. 12:27:01 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:32:44 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > lördag 5 augusti 2023 kl. 02:32:53 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 16:59:30 UTC-4, markus...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.academia.edu/105144840/Cantors_Misguided_Diagonal_Argument
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have a representation of the numbers in (0, 1), but not an enumeration. So not a bijection.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have both, you little moron. Representation is enumeration.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has nothing to do with a "bijection".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To be countable means to be listable in a systematic way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eat shit and die.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then tell me what natural number one third corresponds to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you actually studied real analysis, then you would know the answer to your question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Like I said, you are a very sick boy and you need to seek help immediately. Sweden has free healthcare.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Get help soon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why would I need help?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mentally ill people don't know why they need help, so no use asking. Just get help because you are one heck of an annoying, delusional crank!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can't you just tell me where 1/3 is in your list? What natural number does it correspond to?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It does not have to correspond to a natural number. That is not the principle of sets which are countable.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A countable set is one whose elements can be SYSTEMATICALLY listed or NAMED UNIQUELY. The set of natural numbers has his property and that is why it is used as an INDEX set. Your baboon lecturers didn't know these things and that is why you are such a moron.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The elements in my tree are named by the top-down and left-right traversals.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As for 1/3, it has no measure in base 10. If you ask me to show you, then I'll ask you to give me all the digits. As long as you keep giving me significant digits, I can keep giving you a unique NAME..
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For any decimal representation, I can give you a unique name in the tree, but you have to provide all the digits.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't respond like the moron that you are, that there are infinite representations because there aren't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Irony is that you won't even notice you are contradicting yourself when you claim 0.333... is an infinite representation and then assert it is not in my tree. I piss and shit on you! LMAO. I assert that 0.333... is in my tree.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It does have to correspond with a natural number. That's what s bijection is.
> > > > > > > > > > > Pay attention to what I tell you, you pigheaded moron.. A bijection is the same as an INDEX from one set into another. It is a way of checking for countability, but countability does not care about the natural numbers, only that a set's elements can be systematically NAMED and UNIQUE.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that 1/3 is in your tree, but it doesn't have a corresponding natural number.
> > > > > > > > > > > Does not need to. All one needs is a unique NAME at each node in the tree.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 0.333... does not have a corresponding fraction of the form p/10^n.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Every element of any set can be "named", so that's why it's not a good definition.
> > > > > > > > > > > Rubbish. Try naming the elements of R. It is a very solid definition. Better than crank Cantor's by far.
> > > > > > > > > > > > The correct definition is that every element corresponds to a natural number and every natural number corresponds to an element.
> > > > > > > > > > > No. That's what your teacher tells you because like you, he does not understand what it means for a set to be countable, only how to check for countability. Just like you, moron! You have no clue what it means for a set to be countable. Wait, you have no clue about anything...
> > > > > > > > > > Every real number can be "named" by their decimal expansion.
> > > > > > > > > That is one of your illusions. Even if it were true, it still would not be enough to prove that R is countable. Like I taught you, moron, you need to be able to SYSTEMATICALLY NAME the elements.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You do not have a natural number for 1/3, so it isn't a proof that the reals are countable. It's wrong.
> > > > > > > > > Nope. It's correct. The one who is ALWAYS wrong is you. I kicked you off Discord not because you were always wrong, but because you never learn. Tsk, tsk. True crank is what you are.,
> > > > > > > > I can systematically "name" every element of R (which by the way isn't a formal definition), that doesn't make R countable.
> > > > > > > You can't. It's not a formal definition but then again, Cantor was not a genius. I am. You on the other hand, are a moron.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you think you can name every element of R, then do it here, you lying blowhard idiot!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > YES, it and it alone makes a set countable. N has this special property that all its elements can be named uniquely in a given radix system. This is not possible with the imaginary set R.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <drivel>
> > > > > > Every real number can be named by its full decimal expansion, for example.
> > > > > Put up or shut the fuck up, you stupid! Show how you can systematically name every real number using your "full" decimal expansions.
> > > > > > A decimal expansion uniquely defines a real number.
> > > > > No such thing as infinite decimal expansion, so no real number.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But 'being named" isn't mathematics since you haven't given a formal definition for that.
> > > > > You don't get to decide what is mathematics or not, you motherless fuck!
> > > > > The definition I gave is 100% mathematics. The one you use (bijection with N) is for stupids like you and your professors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You haven't proved the reals are countable because you do not have a bijection. 🥸
> > > > > Repeat this shit again and this discussion is also over. I don't have time for morons.
> > > > Well, you haven't really defined what "systematically name" means in formal logic.
> > > Sonny, I don't have time to teach you English in addition to mathematics. There are good dictionaries online. Try using them!
> > >
> > > sys·tem·at·ic
> > > adjective
> > > done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
> > >
> > > Oxford dictionary.
> > >
> > > What is quite laughable is that you claim to have a BS in math and you don't understand "systematically"! May be time for you to join Zelos Malum for some English classes? LMAO.
> > >
> > > <repeated his drivel>
> > What does "done or acting according to a fixed plan or system" mean FORMALLY?
> Fuck off. I don't have time to teach you English.
I know English. I don't know what that means mathematically.