On Monday, 29 March 2021 at 19:55:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqTuuhR3-4
>
> Pinned Comment:
>
> So the tree algorithm can be thought of as a "name generator". And this is all it means for a "number" to be countable: That a unique name can be computed for it.
>
> You also show that by necessity such "generator" would use the "..." kludge to work if its supposed to work with "numbers" of the form "xxx..." i.e... it outputs "yyy..." when the argument is "xxx..."
>
> Of course "xxx..." is not a number, and that's the problem. But that is not a problem with your generator, -- it creates the bijections just fine.
>
> The problem is not what bijection to use: something that uses a tree (like your algorithm) or something that uses the natural numbers (Cantor's). But the problem of what is a number.
>
> Here you play devil's advocate and prove that:
> "all real number in the interval (0,1) are countable IFF one would accept the existence of infinite sequences"
>
> But number as infinite sequences is meaningless so everything derived from it is false.
>
> Thank you
> -----------------------------------------
> My response:
>
> Spot on!
>
>
> The Church of Academia has never understood what Cantor meant by a countable set, that is, the definition of countability depends on naming or listing:
>
>
> A set is countable if and only if its members can be systematically named..
>
>
> This is why Cantor chose the set of natural numbers because starting with the very first which is the unit, every member can be given a unique name in a chosen radix system, that is, the natural numbers can be used as indexes or names of the set being tested for countability. Hence, if any set is in bijection with N (the natural numbers), then it follows it too must be countable. It also is obvious why a bijection between any set and the mythical set of real numbers cannot be used in a definition for countable set, simply because the members of the set of "real numbers" cannot be systematically named in any way. Real numbers do not exist.
>
>
>
>
> "So the tree algorithm can be thought of as a "name generator". And this is all it means for a "number" to be countable: That a unique name can be computed for it. "
>
>
> Yes. This is what I tried to explain to that idiot Mark Chu Carroll on his blog but he never got it. Representation is nine tenths of enumeration.
>
>
>
>
> "Here you play devil's advocate and prove that:"all real number in the interval (0,1) are countable IFF one would accept the existence of infinite sequences"
>
>
> But number as infinite sequences is meaningless so everything derived from it is false. "
>
>
> Yes!!
>
>
> One can't even talk about the set of real numbers being countable because its members are not all known, that is, they cannot be systematically named. So Cantor was right, but not for the reasons he thought. :-)))

Cantor's bullshit spread like a virus into the brains of Giuseppe Peano who formulated his 5 crank axioms by relabeling the counting numbers.

Peano thought that "recursion" might add a touch of finesse. Chuckle.

0 = 0
1 = S(0)
2 = S(S(0))

Worthless bullshit of bijective cardinality all over again. The Cantor virus has been an epidemic all these decades with many pompous mainstream asses calling his "diagonal argument" a stroke of genius when it fails in the first assumption, ie, there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion.

And no, your teacher lied to you when the pedophile told you that 1/3 = 0..333... and even worse 1 = 0.999...

On Tuesday, June 8, 2021 at 4:51:33 PM UTC+1, Eram semper recta wrote:

"And no, your teacher lied to you when the pedophile told you that 1/3 = 0.333... and even worse 1 = 0.999..."

That's it I've seen enough, I'm lowering your IQ estimate (SD=15) from 108 to 102.

This is a rather piss poor showing this year Mr Gabriel (Bottom Kitten 102).. We started off with a generous estimate of IQ 115 for you, to provide a balance between cold hard reality and gentle encouragement. But every few comments or so you demonstrate that we were being even more generous to you than Peter Singer is to Malaria Net funds. It went down to 113 after some especially silly remarks...then down to 108 after blatant science denial with your childish comments on evolution. Now with lying to students and insinuating the maths teaching profession of being littered with pedophiles (gave you a failing grade too many times did they ? :-) ) we are going to lower it again.

You are currently Bottom Kitten 102

The only reason it isn't 95, is because self-esteem is important, and we don't want to damage yours too much in one go. But any more of this and you will go from being a bottom kitten, right down to the litter tray level like the anti-vaxxers and Archimedes Plutonium (is it true you were inspired by his ideas, or are they all your own brain farts?).

I've warned you several times now about your possible future: a poor imitation Archimedes Plutonium. Just read his mental diarrhoea posts. A monkey chained to a type writer and injected with mescalin would probably produce something more lucid. Your posts are sounding more like his every day (your NPD is just more pronounced and a bit funnier for that). Is what AP is now what you want for your future?

Don't say you weren't warned.

How does a diagonal change a set into a different order?

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, 8 June 2021 at 11:51:33 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> On Monday, 29 March 2021 at 19:55:55 UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqTuuhR3-4
> >
> > Pinned Comment:
> >
> > So the tree algorithm can be thought of as a "name generator". And this is all it means for a "number" to be countable: That a unique name can be computed for it.
> >
> > You also show that by necessity such "generator" would use the "..." kludge to work if its supposed to work with "numbers" of the form "xxx..." i.e.. it outputs "yyy..." when the argument is "xxx..."
> >
> > Of course "xxx..." is not a number, and that's the problem. But that is not a problem with your generator, -- it creates the bijections just fine.
> >
> > The problem is not what bijection to use: something that uses a tree (like your algorithm) or something that uses the natural numbers (Cantor's). But the problem of what is a number.
> >
> > Here you play devil's advocate and prove that:
> > "all real number in the interval (0,1) are countable IFF one would accept the existence of infinite sequences"
> >
> > But number as infinite sequences is meaningless so everything derived from it is false.
> >
> > Thank you
> > -----------------------------------------
> > My response:
> >
> > Spot on!
> >
> >
> > The Church of Academia has never understood what Cantor meant by a countable set, that is, the definition of countability depends on naming or listing:
> >
> >
> > A set is countable if and only if its members can be systematically named.
> >
> >
> > This is why Cantor chose the set of natural numbers because starting with the very first which is the unit, every member can be given a unique name in a chosen radix system, that is, the natural numbers can be used as indexes or names of the set being tested for countability. Hence, if any set is in bijection with N (the natural numbers), then it follows it too must be countable. It also is obvious why a bijection between any set and the mythical set of real numbers cannot be used in a definition for countable set, simply because the members of the set of "real numbers" cannot be systematically named in any way. Real numbers do not exist.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "So the tree algorithm can be thought of as a "name generator". And this is all it means for a "number" to be countable: That a unique name can be computed for it. "
> >
> >
> > Yes. This is what I tried to explain to that idiot Mark Chu Carroll on his blog but he never got it. Representation is nine tenths of enumeration.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Here you play devil's advocate and prove that:"all real number in the interval (0,1) are countable IFF one would accept the existence of infinite sequences"
> >
> >
> > But number as infinite sequences is meaningless so everything derived from it is false. "
> >
> >
> > Yes!!
> >
> >
> > One can't even talk about the set of real numbers being countable because its members are not all known, that is, they cannot be systematically named. So Cantor was right, but not for the reasons he thought. :-)))
> Cantor's bullshit spread like a virus into the brains of Giuseppe Peano who formulated his 5 crank axioms by relabeling the counting numbers.
>
> Peano thought that "recursion" might add a touch of finesse. Chuckle.
>
> 0 = 0
> 1 = S(0)
> 2 = S(S(0))
>
> Worthless bullshit of bijective cardinality all over again. The Cantor virus has been an epidemic all these decades with many pompous mainstream asses calling his "diagonal argument" a stroke of genius when it fails in the first assumption, ie, there is no such thing as an infinite decimal expansion.
>
> And no, your teacher lied to you when the pedophile told you that 1/3 = 0.333... and even worse 1 = 0.999...

The sad part is that mainstream academic morons don't know anything about the meaning of number, so convoluted crap like Peano's juvenile "axioms" appeals to small brains. Tsk, tsk.

When they don't understand, the next best thing is to proclaim their ignorance to be an axiom. Chuckle.

Eram semper recta <thenewcalculus@gmail.com> wrote:

[ .... ]

> Worthless bullshit of bijective cardinality all over again. The Cantor
> virus has been an epidemic all these decades with many pompous
> mainstream asses calling his "diagonal argument" a stroke of genius
> when it fails in the first assumption, ie, there is no such thing as an
> infinite decimal expansion.

Look, John, you don't understand what it is for something mathematical to
exist or not. We've established that. So please stop making silly
statements like the above. There are indeed infinite decimal expansions.

> And no, your teacher lied to you when [....] told you that 1/3 =
> 0.333... and even worse 1 = 0.999...

These are simple, obvious truths, known and understood even by primary
school children. You have some catching up to do in your mathematical
education.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).