Prev: Z is not naturally ordered?
Next: A BLATENT FLAW in Cantor's diag proof
From: Dingo on 7 Jun 2010 21:13
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.
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 21:40
"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

From: Sylvia Else on 7 Jun 2010 21:46
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.
From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 22:04
"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.

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

From: |-|ercules on 7 Jun 2010 22:06
"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote
> "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.
>
> 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
>


There you go Dingo, see if you can tell me how to spell lager correctly!

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