SCI.MATH POLL - uncountable infinity
in [Physics]
|
Prev: BP's bid to stem gusher stalled over stuck saw Meantime, oil drifts to within 9 miles of Pensacola beaches WITH ONE HOUR ONLY REQUIRED TO CHOKE THAT WELL
Next: CO2, Global Warming and the Royal Society
From: Sylvia Else on 6 Jun 2010 06:45 On 5/06/2010 3:57 PM, Barb Knox wrote: > In article<86od4nFja0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "|-|ercules"<radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > [SNIP] > > Ah, the Townsville looney returns. > > Mate, you just gotta stop licking those cane toads. > > I haven't heard of anyone licking them, but they boil up a treat. Sylvia.
From: |-|ercules on 6 Jun 2010 23:17 "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> wrote > In any case, this thread appears to be closed, aside from tying > up any loose ends that may remain. Since it has been established > that proofs of the existence of higher orders of infinity do not > in general rely on the proof that |S| < |P(S)| for any set S, there > really is no way anyone is going to answer the poll question in the > affirmative. Not even the OP, apparently, is interested in further > discussion here. This is a joke. I thought I'd heard 10,000 reasons skeptics don't need to investigate claims, but sci.math wants the King Con Crown. You refuse to acknowledge the powerset proof of higher infinity is silly (at least looks silly) because there's other proofs of higher infinity! Fck me! ONE AT A TIME! Even if I meticulously worded my argument in your NULL HYPOTHESIS anti anything lingo and traced down all your good for nothing ZFC religion a - x - i - o - m - s you'd still not understand the claim and wiggle and worm out of that too. Here's an idea. Try answering the question! Given a set of labeled boxes containing numbers inside them, can you possibly find a box containing all the label numbers of boxes that don't contain their own label number? Herc
From: herbzet on 6 Jun 2010 23:34 |-|ercules wrote: > "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> wrote > > > In any case, this thread appears to be closed, aside from tying > > up any loose ends that may remain. Since it has been established > > that proofs of the existence of higher orders of infinity do not > > in general rely on the proof that |S| < |P(S)| for any set S, there > > really is no way anyone is going to answer the poll question in the > > affirmative. Not even the OP, apparently, is interested in further > > discussion here. > > This is a joke. I thought I'd heard 10,000 reasons skeptics don't need > to investigate claims, but sci.math wants the King Con Crown. Actually, I don't subscribe to sci.math. You may avoid my replies by not cross-posting to sci.logic. > You refuse to acknowledge the powerset proof of higher infinity is silly > (at least looks silly) because there's other proofs of higher infinity! Sorry, that's not what you asked. I'm not a mind reader, you know. > Even if I meticulously worded my argument Say, that's a thought -- why don't you give it a try? > in your NULL HYPOTHESIS > anti anything lingo and traced down all your good for nothing ZFC religion > a - x - i - o - m - s you'd still not understand the claim and wiggle and worm > out of that too. You're foaming at the mouth a bit. -- hz
From: |-|ercules on 6 Jun 2010 23:47 "herbzet" <herbzet(a)gmail.com> wrote >> You refuse to acknowledge the powerset proof of higher infinity is silly >> (at least looks silly) because there's other proofs of higher infinity! > > Sorry, that's not what you asked. I'm not a mind reader, you know. > >> Even if I meticulously worded my argument You really are a literal nut. Reword: You refuse to acknowledge the silly rewording of the powerset proof of higher infinity. Despite it's provability in ZFC! (HA) Herc
From: herbzet on 6 Jun 2010 23:52
|-|ercules wrote: > "herbzet" wrote No, I didn't, you did. > >> You refuse to acknowledge the powerset proof of higher infinity is silly > >> (at least looks silly) because there's other proofs of higher infinity! > > > > Sorry, that's not what you asked. I'm not a mind reader, you know. > > > >> Even if I meticulously worded my argument > > You really are a literal nut. I didn't say that -- you did. Are you off you meds? -- hz |