SCI.MATH ARE FULL OF SH1T<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
in [Logic]
|
From: dannas on 3 Jun 2010 17:59 "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:86qgqmFdrhU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "dannas" <invalid(a)invalid.com> wrote >>> Do you accept Cantor's powerset proof of higher infinities? >> >> no such thing, "Cantor's powerset proof of higher infinities", please try >> to be precise. > > Everyone in these newsgroups knows exactly what proof I'm talking about > (bar aus.tv) > and the worldwide beliefs that entail, including the result that an > uncountable infinity > exists that is larger than 1,2,3,4...oo infinity! > > Herc yea, but you cant take credit for it, that disney/pixar toy already knew it; http://www.packthecat.com/Ethan/pictures/ToInfinityAndBeyond.jpg your playing with blocks in this newsgroup!
From: Ostap Bender on 3 Jun 2010 18:04 On Jun 3, 2:34 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Ostap Bender" <ostap_bender_1...(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > > On Jun 2, 11:50 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Nobody will answer the Poll on uncountable infinity > > >> because it demonstrates that Cantor's proof is ridiculous. > > >> They don't acknowledge my simplest computer model, proof of the possible > >> existence of a halting algorithm, or Godel disproof that it has any influence > >> on the capability of formal computer systems. > > >> Turing, Halt, Godel and Cantor all disproved by me! > > > And yet, humankind will remember their names for centuries, while > > nobody will ever pay attention to your "disproof". > > Nah I just read the bible in this motel room, it said Lord God will be recognized > for his great power and strength. > > Here's the Poll questions if you want to dispute me and keep praising Cantor > for showing you the paradise of higher infinity as you call it. > > 1/ is there a box that contains the numbers of all the boxes that don't contain their own number? > > and > > 2/ Can the result of 1/ be used to prove the existence of higher infinities? Here's the Poll question for you: have you heard of Bertrand Russell?
From: |-|ercules on 3 Jun 2010 18:39 "dannas" <invalid(a)invalid.com> wrote... >> 3/ Is there an indexed subset of naturals that contains all the indexes of >> the subsets where >> that index is not an element of it's subset? > > no. he was into "cardinality", try yer little wiki on that. Now you are all hand waving and diverting the topic. Was that a NO to 3/ or something else? If ONE person from sci.math would just answer the questions I am putting forth it would be a LOT easier to make my point explicit instead of getting the runaround. Direct questions deserve direct answers. Herc
From: |-|ercules on 6 Jun 2010 17:54
SCI.MATH ARE FULL OF SH1T<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< see subject. post your indirect comments while avoiding answering any questions here.. Herc |