Prev: Z is not naturally ordered?
Next: A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof
From: Dingo on 7 Jun 2010 22:34
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:40:46 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>"Dingo" <dingo(a)gmail.com> wrote...
>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 05:40:36 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That's because you never bother to work things out, you have to be spoon fed everything.
>>
>> No, it's because you're lost in your own delusions.
>
>It should be easy to prove I'm not God Dingo.
>
>I make spelling and grammar mistakes in perhaps 20% of my posts. All you have to do
>is find one of the dozens of grammar Nazis who corrected my spelling or grammar.
>
>Surely one person in the world can correct me if I'm a mere mortal?
>
>Herc

More of your meaningless dribbling drivel.
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 22:38
"Dingo" <dingo(a)gmail.com> wrote ...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:40:46 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Dingo" <dingo(a)gmail.com> wrote...
>>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 05:40:36 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>That's because you never bother to work things out, you have to be spoon fed everything.
>>>
>>> No, it's because you're lost in your own delusions.
>>
>>It should be easy to prove I'm not God Dingo.
>>
>>I make spelling and grammar mistakes in perhaps 20% of my posts. All you have to do
>>is find one of the dozens of grammar Nazis who corrected my spelling or grammar.
>>
>>Surely one person in the world can correct me if I'm a mere mortal?
>>
>>Herc
>
> More of your meaningless dribbling drivel.


Dimwits like you can't usually contemplate hypothetical situations, but out of curiosity
what are you going to do if you see me on TV one day collecting a $1,000,000 psychic prize?

Everyone should have a plan B Drongo!

Herc

From: Dingo on 7 Jun 2010 23:32
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:38:46 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Dimwits like you can't usually contemplate hypothetical situations, but out of curiosity
>what are you going to do if you see me on TV one day collecting a $1,000,000 psychic prize?

It's more likely we'll hear you on the news getting locked up again
for making deadly threats.
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 23:43
"Dingo" <dingo(a)gmail.com> wrote ...
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 12:38:46 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Dimwits like you can't usually contemplate hypothetical situations, but out of curiosity
>>what are you going to do if you see me on TV one day collecting a $1,000,000 psychic prize?
>
> It's more likely we'll hear you on the news getting locked up again
> for making deadly threats.

Like "please reply in a day or two"?

Herc
From: Mike Terry on 8 Jun 2010 13:17
"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:875mq5Fd31U1(a)mid.individual.net...
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote...
> > On 8/06/2010 5:40 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
> >> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote
> >>>
> >>> Herc, this is like the channelling stuff you post on youtube. You seem
> >>> to think that you're proving something, but it's never clear *why* you
> >>> think that.
> >>>
> >>> We see something like
> >>>
> >>> a = b therefore x = 3.
> >>>
> >>> To which the response is naturally <blink> huh?
> >>>
> >>> Sylvia.
> >>
> >> That's because you never bother to work things out, you have to be
spoon
> >> fed everything.
> >
> > There's never anything to be worked out. No sense can be extracted from
> > nonsense.
> >
> > Sylvia.
>
> The idea was to *appear* nonsense, using an equivalent proof to higher
infinity
> as Cantor used.
>
> The Swan Lager carton contains stubbies of the type of beer that the
cartons don't
> contain their own type of stubby.
>

Yes - note that the Swan Lager carton was a *new* carton, i.e. not one of
the cartons used in its own construction. No problem then: the procedure
gives us a guaranteed new combination of beers in the Swan carton. We could
imagine extending the argument to an infinite number of beer types/cartons I
suppose, and this would be showing that if we have any map A-->P(A) there
will always be an element of P(A) not in the image of the map. ("A" is "the
set of beer types"). Of course in practice we could not do this with
infinite beer types due to time/material constraints.

Or are you saying you want the Swan Lager carton to be included in the
original list used to build itself? Clearly that's physically nonsense.
You might as well ask someone to solve the following puzzle:

Here is a light switch. You must set it to on/off, satisfying the
following criteria:

a) you can only have the switch on, if the switch is off
b) you can only have the switch off, if the switch is on

Maybe you believe this is a deeply profound puzzle with relevance to
Cantor's proof, but in fact it's just a nonsense puzzle with no solution.
(And not contributing anything that invalidates Cantor's proof :-)


Regards,
Mike.


> So does the Swan Lager stubby belong in the Swan Lager carton?
>
> Yes - then the Swan Larger carton contains it's own type of stubby, and it
doesn't belong
> in the Swan Lager carton
> No - then the Swan Larger carton doesn't contain it's own type of stubby,
and therefore
> there should be a Swan Larger stubby in the Swan Lager carton.
>
> I'm sure you can this is a direct analogy equivalent to Cantor's proof of
higher infinity
> but you are playing dumb.
>
> Herc
>


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Z is not naturally ordered?
Next: A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof