On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 01:03:04 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 19 augusti 2021 kl. 15:38:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 11:05:34 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > onsdag 18 augusti 2021 kl. 16:56:47 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > On Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 01:24:50 UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > tisdag 17 augusti 2021 kl. 23:56:17 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, 17 August 2021 at 09:11:52 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > måndag 16 augusti 2021 kl. 21:45:50 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 09:52:55 UTC-4, markus...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > måndag 19 juli 2021 kl. 03:01:46 UTC+2 skrev Eram semper recta:
> > > > > > > > > > If indeed those mythical objects called "real numbers" can be expressed as "infinite decimals", then the "real number set" is indeed countable:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > https://youtu.be/hlqTuuhR3-4
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A set is countable IFF its members can be listed systematically.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Equivalent statements:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A set is countable IFF its members can be indexed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A set is countable IFF its members can be named systematically.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Cantor was an insane crank!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am a genius and I do know better than you and anyone else.
> > > > > > > > > That's not what the definition is, John.
> > > > > > > > That IS the essence of the definition, otherwise it makes no sense whatsoever.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your bullshit mainstream definition that "a set is countable if it can be placed into a bijection with |N or a subset of |N", is indeed EQUIVALENT to the above definitions. There is NO difference whatsoever. However, being the utter crank that you are, the subtleties will escape you!
> > > > > > > The "essence" of a definition is not the definition itself.
> > > > > > Your honour, I rest my case. LMAO
> > > > > > > And "systematically name" is pretty ill-defined to begin with..
> > > > > > I see you are poor at English grammar also? Hm. I thought Malum was bad, but evidently I stand corrected.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To "systematically name members of a set" is very clear English.. It's the real reason (excuse pun) that real number set does not exist. Simply because those things you call real numbers can't be counted in the first place. So Cantor was right that the set of real numbers is not countable! It does not exist! ROFLMAO.
> > > > > It might be "clear english" but it is not clear enough mathematically which require the outmost precision.
> > > > Laughing so hard that I had to stop and expel gas ... now I am recomposed.
> > > >
> > > > 1. You don't know anything about mathematics.
> > > > 2. There is nothing but imprecision in everything you believe. What is "set"? LMAO.
> > > > > We have had many times in history where the ambiguity of words have resulted in seeming contradictions.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is until the realisation that the issue was the words and people understood them differently that they disappeared by separating them.
> > > > Rubbish. That the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round has no issues in wording or otherwise.
> >
> > > To "systematically name members of a set" is very dubious, as pointed out before.
> > Tell me idiot, do you think that because morons like you "point out things that you believe wrong" that this constitutes an argument of any kind? Are you really this stupid?
> >
> > The whole world will laugh at your above nonsense.
> >
> > "systematically name members of a set" is a clear expression. Let's see an example for two year olds.
> >
> > Name the members of the set {1, 4, 3, 2} systematically.
> >
> > Think you are up to it? Chuckle.
> > > You can name every number of an uncountable set by just writing out what the element is.
> > Then do it! LMAO. I gave you a test. Write out ALL the elements of (0,1), you stupid crank!
> >
> > And no, your bullshit about 9999 does not count. ROFLMAO.
> Bobe, Jane, John, Hanna.

Wow. Seems like you're losing it! Did you even try to understand the question?