Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion BoardThe Critic's Resource on Antievolution

 Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Joe G.'s Tardgasm

 Pages: (801) < ... 757 758 759 760 761 [762] 763 764 765 766 767 ... >
 Topic: Joe G.'s Tardgasm, How long can it last? < Next Oldest | Next Newest >
Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,21:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

Hey keiths,

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

Stop being such a limp dick, keiths.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

and once again:

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,21:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

 Quote (Joe @ ,) Stop being such a limp dick, keiths.

To quote someone:
 Quote Why are you too chickenshit to say?

Edited by keiths on April 16 2019,20:19

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Jkrebs

Posts: 498
Joined: Sep. 2004

Yes, but is there a 50 billion and oneth?

Texas Teach

Posts: 1919
Joined: April 2007

 Quote (Jkrebs @ April 16 2019,22:40) Yes, but is there a 50 billion and oneth?

Apparently only if you can name it at Joe’s command.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

stevestory

Posts: 11964
Joined: Oct. 2005

 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:19)
 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,21:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

 Quote (Joe @ ,) Stop being such a limp dick, keiths.

To quote someone:
 Quote Why are you too chickenshit to say?

At least I can read, asshole:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are you too stupid to understand?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 16 2019,22:44)
 Quote (Jkrebs @ April 16 2019,22:40) Yes, but is there a 50 billion and oneth?

Apparently only if you can name it at Joe’s command.

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2019,22:49)
 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July  :D

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,05:20)
Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2019,22:49)
 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July  :D

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

Heh.  Seems that the Joemathematician is afraid of where this question will lead.

Here's a hint, Joe:  There is a 50 billionth prime, even if no one can name it.

That was proven over 2000 years ago.  Using real math, not Joemath.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,05:20)
Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2019,22:49)
 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July  :D

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

Heh.  Seems that the Joemathematician is afraid of where this question will lead.

Here's a hint, Joe:  There is a 50 billionth prime, even if no one can name it.

That was proven over 2000 years ago.  Using real math, not Joemath.

LoL! So keiths is too stupid to understand what I post.

keiths is so stupid he thinks one can collect that which is unknown. But hey, keiths is so stupid he thinks someone can collect infinite elements.

Here's a HINT keiths: The question was NEVER if there are infinite primes

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

stevestory

Posts: 11964
Joined: Oct. 2005

Hey Joe, what's the smallest positive Real Number?

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (stevestory @ April 17 2019,09:39) Hey Joe, what's the smallest positive Real Number?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,06:30)
Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,05:20)

Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2019,22:49)

 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July  :D

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

Heh.  Seems that the Joemathematician is afraid of where this question will lead.

Here's a hint, Joe:  There is a 50 billionth prime, even if no one can name it.

That was proven over 2000 years ago.  Using real math, not Joemath.

LoL! So keiths is too stupid to understand what I post.

keiths is so stupid he thinks one can collect that which is unknown. But hey, keiths is so stupid he thinks someone can collect infinite elements.

Here's a HINT keiths: The question was NEVER if there are infinite primes

Joe,  this is pitifully simple, which is no doubt why you are struggling.

You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,09:59)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,06:30)
Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,08:12)

Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,05:20)

Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2019,22:49)

 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July  :D

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

Heh.  Seems that the Joemathematician is afraid of where this question will lead.

Here's a hint, Joe:  There is a 50 billionth prime, even if no one can name it.

That was proven over 2000 years ago.  Using real math, not Joemath.

LoL! So keiths is too stupid to understand what I post.

keiths is so stupid he thinks one can collect that which is unknown. But hey, keiths is so stupid he thinks someone can collect infinite elements.

Here's a HINT keiths: The question was NEVER if there are infinite primes

Joe,  this is pitifully simple, which is no doubt why you are struggling.

You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

LoL! You are the one struggling, keiths.

A SET is a COLLECTION, dumbass.

But thank you for proving that you are too fucking senile to understand my posts.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,08:02)
Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,09:59)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,06:30)
Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,05:20)

Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2019,22:49)
 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July  :D

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

Heh.  Seems that the Joemathematician is afraid of where this question will lead.

Here's a hint, Joe:  There is a 50 billionth prime, even if no one can name it.

That was proven over 2000 years ago.  Using real math, not Joemath.

LoL! So keiths is too stupid to understand what I post.

keiths is so stupid he thinks one can collect that which is unknown. But hey, keiths is so stupid he thinks someone can collect infinite elements.

Here's a HINT keiths: The question was NEVER if there are infinite primes

Joe,  this is pitifully simple, which is no doubt why you are struggling.

You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

LoL! You are the one struggling, keiths.

A SET is a COLLECTION, dumbass.

But thank you for proving that you are too fucking senile to understand my posts.

Joe,

Let's talk about the properties of the set {1,2,3...,999999999,1000000000}.

We'll wait while you go and collect all the elements.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

 Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,07:59) You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

And that, by the way, is how you answer the question I posed about alphabetic strings:
 Quote b) What's the relative cardinality of {1,2,3,...} vs all the possible alphabetic strings that can be made using the 26 lowercase letters of the English alphabet?

Those strings can be put into an ordered list.  Therefore they are countably infinite.

Joe, see if you can figure out what that ordered list would look like.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,10:12)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,08:02)
Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,09:59)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,06:30)
Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,08:12)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,05:20)

Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2019,22:49)
 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July  :D

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

Heh.  Seems that the Joemathematician is afraid of where this question will lead.

Here's a hint, Joe:  There is a 50 billionth prime, even if no one can name it.

That was proven over 2000 years ago.  Using real math, not Joemath.

LoL! So keiths is too stupid to understand what I post.

keiths is so stupid he thinks one can collect that which is unknown. But hey, keiths is so stupid he thinks someone can collect infinite elements.

Here's a HINT keiths: The question was NEVER if there are infinite primes

Joe,  this is pitifully simple, which is no doubt why you are struggling.

You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

LoL! You are the one struggling, keiths.

A SET is a COLLECTION, dumbass.

But thank you for proving that you are too fucking senile to understand my posts.

Joe,

Let's talk about the properties of the set {1,2,3...,999999999,1000000000}.

We'll wait while you go and collect all the elements.

LoL! keiths is proud to be desperate and clueless.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,10:18)
 Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,07:59) You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

And that, by the way, is how you answer the question I posed about alphabetic strings:
 Quote b) What's the relative cardinality of {1,2,3,...} vs all the possible alphabetic strings that can be made using the 26 lowercase letters of the English alphabet?

Those strings can be put into an ordered list.  Therefore they are countably infinite.

Joe, see if you can figure out what that ordered list would look like.

LoL! I don't care, keiths. But if you want me to do your work then you have to pay me.

Thank you for proving that you are a clueless asshole, though.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

Clearly keiths is too stupid to be able to understand any of it...

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

keiths continues to puke all over himself when it comes to nested hierarchies. And even though it has been proven that Doug Theobald is totally wrong keiths continues to reference him on nested hierarchies. Theobald wrongly spews:

 Quote The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes.

WRONG! Linnaean Taxonomy is an objective nested hierarchy and it doesn't have anything to do with branching evolutionary processes. Corporations can be placed in objective nested hierarchies and again they have nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes. The US Army is a nested hierarchy and it too has nothing to do with branching evolutionary processes.

Clearly Theobald is ignorant of nested hierarchies. He goes on to spew:

 Quote It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings

Umm, TRANSITIONAL FORMs have combined characteristics of different nested groups, Dougy. And your position expects numerous transitional forms.

But Doug's biggest mistake was saying that phylogenies form a nested hierarchy- they don't as explained in the Knox paper-  “The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics”, Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 63: 1–49, 1998.

And for fuck's sake even Darwin knew that if you tried to include all of the alleged transitional forms you couldn't form distinguished groups:

 Quote Extinction has only defined the groups: it has by no means made them; for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished, still a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible.- Charles Darwin chapter 14

Nested hierarchies require distinct and distinguished groups- again see Linnaean Taxonomy. AND nested hierarchies are artificial constructs.

So only by cherry picking would Common Descent yield a nested hierarchy.

And I understand why the losers here don't want to discuss it.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

stevestory

Posts: 11964
Joined: Oct. 2005

 Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,10:59) You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

Joe's mistake has been obvious for months, he always links the counting to a temporal process, so not having infinite time to count means no infinite sets. Every time he imagines an infinite series it's always with a real-time counting process.

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (stevestory @ April 17 2019,11:32)
 Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,10:59) You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

Joe's mistake has been obvious for months, he always links the counting to a temporal process, so not having infinite time to count means no infinite sets. Every time he imagines an infinite series it's always with a real-time counting process.

LoL! stevie's mistake has been obvious for years, he believes he can think and reason when the evidence demonstrates the contrary.

I don't care if you have infinite time. You will still never be able to collect infinite objects.

But all that is moot with respect to relative cardinalities.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,09:59)
Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,06:30)
Quote (keiths @ April 17 2019,08:12)

Quote (Joe G @ April 17 2019,05:20)

Quote (stevestory @ April 16 2019,22:49)

 Quote (keiths @ April 16 2019,22:18) Hey Joe,For our entertainment, please tell us:  Is there a 50 billionth prime?

That's a high school level math question, so if it follows the same pattern as the 5.6° steak, expect Joe to have the correct answer by around July  :D

Again, with the reading comprehension issues:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals; N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

So all we are left with is the very unsatisfying "It's infinity, dude. Like it all becomes one, man."

But all that is moot if you consider the fundamental contradiction of having a set with infinite elements...

What part of that are YOU too stupid to understand?

Heh.  Seems that the Joemathematician is afraid of where this question will lead.

Here's a hint, Joe:  There is a 50 billionth prime, even if no one can name it.

That was proven over 2000 years ago.  Using real math, not Joemath.

LoL! So keiths is too stupid to understand what I post.

keiths is so stupid he thinks one can collect that which is unknown. But hey, keiths is so stupid he thinks someone can collect infinite elements.

Here's a HINT keiths: The question was NEVER if there are infinite primes

Joe,  this is pitifully simple, which is no doubt why you are struggling.

You don't have to "collect" all the primes in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals.  You just need to show that they can be put into an ordered list.

Wow. Just wow:

The thing with the primes is the mapping function (to the naturals: N). There should be one. Mathematicians should be able to produce one.

For every countably infinite set there should be such a mapping function.

With JoeMath that would be one objective, to find them.

With JoeMath, the value of the naturals would be N (sounds weirdly familiar). All countably infinite sets' cardinalities would be relative to N.

The point is if the cardinalities are the same (with countably infinite sets) then basic set subtraction should confirm that. And yet it doesn't.

All I am saying is that "in order to show that there's a bijection between them and the naturals" there should be a mapping function.

And clearly the evoTARDs are struggling with that for some twisted reason.

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

JohnW

Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

 Quote There is a saying in India, "Playing the flute to a buffalo" (is wasteful), generally used in the context of knowledge imparting to a stupid person. At the end of the day, stupidity still remains. Is there an English equivalent for that?

There is now.  Explaining anything to JoeG.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

Quote (JohnW @ April 17 2019,12:05)
 Quote There is a saying in India, "Playing the flute to a buffalo" (is wasteful), generally used in the context of knowledge imparting to a stupid person. At the end of the day, stupidity still remains. Is there an English equivalent for that?

There is now.  Explaining anything to JoeG.

LoL! evoTARDs cannot explain anything because clearly they lack reading comprehension skills. AND they are too chickenshit to make a case.

JohnW is too dim to be able to use a dictionary and thesaurus. And yet he thinks he can pass judgement on me?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

stevestory

Posts: 11964
Joined: Oct. 2005

What makes Sherrie-Joe's struggle super sad is that there are multiple people even at UD who could correctly answer the yes or no question "is there a 50 billionth prime number?", while Joe can't seem to.

Joe G

Posts: 9933
Joined: July 2007

 Quote (stevestory @ April 17 2019,12:26) What makes Sherrie-Joe's struggle super sad is that there are multiple people even at UD who could correctly answer the yes or no question "is there a 50 billionth prime number?", while Joe can't seem to.

Umm, there are infinite primes, dipshit.

As I have said, you TARDs have reading comprehension issues.

And it remains that you always refuse to answer my questions.

So the questions are why do evoTARDs get their panties in a knot when their questions have been answered and they are too stupid to realize it and why is it that they are OK with never answering questions?

--------------
Chromosomes. are. all. connected. It is one long polymer. Called the DNA. - oleg t

simple English (hint: "equal" and "interchangeable" aren't synonyms)- JohnW

"Genetic mutations are mistakes"- evolutionary biology

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"- Intelligent Design and Timothy Horton

 24001 replies since Feb. 24 2010,12:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

 Pages: (801) < ... 757 758 759 760 761 [762] 763 764 765 766 767 ... >

 Forum Jump -----------   >All About Antievolution   -----------------------    +- Antievolution, Politics, and the Law    +- Intelligent Design    +- Young-Earth Antievolution    +- Old-Earth Antievolution    +- Collaborations   >Specifically About Intelligent Design   -------------------------------------    +- Intelligent Design News    +- Not a Book to Be Tossed Aside Lightly...    +- Cabbages and Kings    +- The ID-files   >Evolutionary Biology   --------------------    +- News & Events   >From the Panda's Thumb   --------------------------    +- After the Bar Closes...   >The TalkOrigins Archive   -----------------------    +- Feedback

 Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]