Are natural numbers isomorphic to complex numbers?
in [Math]
|
Prev: 3 dimensions and their 4 directions
Next: Redshift and Microwave radiation favor Atom Totality and disfavor Big Bang #9; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
From: Ostap Bender on 4 Jun 2010 23:17 My English has been terrible. Let me re-phrase in better English: On Jun 4, 6:14 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "To repeat for the third time: you treated JJ's stupidities in exactly > the same way, if not worse, that the other people here treated your > own stupidity about the "isomorphism": " > Except that I did not deserve the initial abuse by the mob. JJ's > treatment has a long history and he deserved it. I posted here once in > a long time and I got ridiculed. In hindsight, don't you find your idea of a countable set being isomorphic to an uncountable set to be very funny? Especially coming form somebody like yourself who tries to give lectures about mathematical logic to others. > Besides I had support. You wear jock straps while posting to sci.math? Or do you mean that you found another cretin who thinks that the set of complex numbers is countable? > Here is your mistake; > "He is a simpleton and says a lot of stupid things." Which part of that sentence is a "mistake"? That he is a simpleton? Or that he says a lot of stupid things? > "I almost wept at the rudeness and snobbery that you have unjustly > encountered here, until I saw another thread, in which John Jones > ***innocently*** wrote:" So, my mistake was using the word "innocently"? Scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh? So, you are telling me that this JJ fellow writes not "innocently" but "maliciously"? Are you saying that he doesn't believe his own stupid ideas but posts them for some malicious purpose? What purpose is that? To yank your chain? If so - he is very successful. > You are hurt with my comments about the academia and trying > desperately for a come back. You are a cheap politician. Why would I be "hurt" by anything that an ignoramus like yourself would say? And especially by your words about academia, given that I left academia after getting my PhD and have never been back. Your efforts at playing a psychologist are as inane as your trying to play a expert on mathematical logic and set theory. My participation here has nothing to do with your views on academia. I couldn't care less. You don't have to be a professor of mathematics to understand that the set of complex numbers is uncountable. I learned this in my math club back in 7th grade. I first read this thread because I was intrigued by your amusing title "Are natural numbers isomorphic to complex numbers?" and wanted to see what it's about. What kept me here is your response to the initial polite criticism, especially in the light of your lecturing sci.logic about mathematical logic. Instead of writing "Oops! Sorry! My mind must have had a temporary blackout when I compared N with C. I stand corrected", you acted as if you remain unconvinced that C is uncountable: > Good point. Thank you. More to think about. > I have not accepted your suggestion. > I merely said I was going to think about it. What is there to think about?! In fact, after all this debate, I still can't see where you ever understood and agreed that N and C have different cardinalities.How many more days of thinking will it take you to accept the suggestion that C is uncountable? And maybe instead of launching endless attacks on the general mathematical establishment, your time would have been better spent on learning about the cardinality of integers and of complex numbers?
From: Akira Bergman on 4 Jun 2010 23:19 "A better antonym to "innocent" here is "malicious": So, you are telling me that this JJ fellow writes not "innocently" but "maliciously"? Are you saying that he doesn't believe his own stupid ideas but posts them for some malicious purpose? What purpose is that? To yank your chain? If so - he is very successful." How else can you explain his months long destructive behavior that pissed everyone off? He was doing it in sync with some others, or at least he was very successful in confusing and coercing many. He is not that stupid when it comes to philosophy and politics. Political motivations run deep at that NG. Similar behavior exists all around the web. He could also be just sick or heavily addicted, or both. "So, my mistake was using the word "innocently"? Scraping the bottom of the barrel, eh?" The theme of your JJ claim was that my attack on him was too cruel and not justified. I chose that word because it represented your theme well. Your JJ case has no validity. Ask others if don't believe me.
From: Ostap Bender on 4 Jun 2010 23:34 On Jun 4, 8:19 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "A better antonym to "innocent" here is "malicious": > So, you are telling me that this JJ fellow writes not "innocently" but > "maliciously"? Are you saying that he doesn't believe his own stupid > ideas but posts them for some malicious purpose? What purpose is > that? To yank your chain? If so - he is very successful." > > How else can you explain his months long destructive behavior that > pissed everyone off? Why should I care? Usenet attracts gazillions of kooks, and only a kook would waste his time on psychoanalyzing them. My own experience with Usenet posters who " months long destructive behavior that pissed everyone off" is that they do it perfectly sincerely, out of their own stupidity and/or craziness. > He was doing it in sync with some others, or at > least he was very successful in confusing and coercing many. Why would clearly stupid drivel "confuse" you? Are you incapable of common sense reasoning? > He is not > that stupid when it comes to philosophy and politics. Political > motivations run deep at that NG. Similar behavior exists all around > the web. He could also be just sick or heavily addicted, or both. Quite possible. So, maybe he writes his stupidities because he is under drugs. Why is that "malicious"? > "So, my mistake was using the word "innocently"? Scraping the bottom > of the barrel, eh?" > > The theme of your JJ claim was that my attack on him was too cruel and > not justified. I chose that word because it represented your theme > well. No, my claim has nothing to do with cruelty or justification. My point has been that you show extreme intolerance and arrogance when seeing another person say stupid things. Yet you get righteously offended when others point out your own stupidities. > Your JJ case has no validity. > > Ask others if don't believe me. Gladly: Others, please speak out if my JJ case has no validity!
From: Akira Bergman on 4 Jun 2010 23:37 "What is there to think about?!" I know the meaning of isomorphism. It is pretty self explanatory. I did not want to give in because I am still intrigued by the possibility of the Euler's identity being imprinted on N somehow, like e is through the density of primes. I had been rewarded for following my hunch few times and did not want to abandon it because of formalism. Look at the 0^0 discussion I initiated many years ago as a good example. Until I proved that case, there was strong opposition. I now see that my criticisms of the academia was unfair and too general. I realized thit more after discussing with Magidin and experiencing his patience and strength.
From: Ostap Bender on 5 Jun 2010 00:39
On Jun 4, 8:37 pm, Akira Bergman <akiraberg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "What is there to think about?!" > > I know the meaning of isomorphism. It is pretty self explanatory. I > did not want to give in because I am still intrigued by the > possibility of the Euler's identity being imprinted on N somehow, like > e is through the density of primes. But what does that have to do with isomorphisms? "Isomorphic" means "has exactly the same structure". Even if we forgot the topological and cardinality differences between N and C, how can you think that they can have the same algebraic structure, given that C is is an algebraically closed field, and N is not even closed under subtraction? > I had been rewarded for following my hunch few times and did not want > to abandon it because of formalism. Look at the 0^0 discussion I > initiated many years ago as a good example. No, thank you. I am not interested in hot air games. > Until I proved that case, > there was strong opposition. > > I now see that my criticisms of the academia was unfair and too > general. I realized thit more after discussing with Magidin and > experiencing his patience and strength. Yes, his patience is as always remarkable. He tolerated an enormous amount of unjust abuse from you. |