Re: Question: Given |X|>0 and |Y|>0, can X x Y be empty?

On Aug 8, 7:54 pm, Scott <ToaTe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
And so I changed the proof to fill in the gaps. Unfortunately, I
haven't been able to post it because of everyones frustration.

YOu DID post at least one thing "trying to fill in gaps".
But that is not the point. The original proof you posted was,
well, mistaken. Clue: THIS IS THE INTERNET: DO NOT give
yourself carpal tunnel by posting something out of a book after
typing it yourself: POST A LINK.
After you posted the proof from Potter, the IMMEDIATE next response
was:

You realize that there are glaring mistakes and some things
that don't even make sense among all of that, right?

Even more amazing was your reply, "I'm here to learn from my mistakes;
please point them out." Idiot: YOU WERE POSTING A PROOF FROM
A BOOK. *YOUR* mistakes could be NOWHERE in evidence in that unless
you had MISquoted the book!

But we often have to tell people to stop reading books they don't
understand.
Throw that book away.

WHy are you even trying to disagree with Cantor's theorem in the first
place??

Because I do not understand something about the proof itself.

That is not really true. What you don't understand is first-order
logic.
You really need to start reading THAT book.


Does it not occur to you that since there are proofs of it in books,
IT OBVIOUSLY
MUST be right?? Why don't you instead point to some SINGLE SIMPLE

I've never had a problem with the deduction, its the implicit
assumptions.

THERE ARE *NO* implicit assumptions going on here!
The assumptions are ALL EXplicit in the AXIOMS! There are some more
assumptions involving FOL as a paradigm generally, but IF YOU HAVE
STUDIED FOL then you already know and agree with those assumptions!
You certainly cannot STATE an implicit assumption that anybody ever
MADE
anywhere.
Idiot.

I've already recognized and ackowledged long ago that
the proof itself is solid.

No, you haven't, especially not if you were trying to go by
the proof you posted, WHICH YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, and
which we strongly suspect is not even correctly quoted (since,
as MoeBlee and Artruro both said, "there are glaring mistakes and
some things that don't even make sense among all of that").
If we didn't understand it then it's a very safe bet that you didn't
either.

The problem is I've never come across a
book that addresses the assumptions.

You have no idea how pathetic and idiotic you sound.
YOU CANNOT STATE any alleged "implicit assumptions".
There is nothing going on here beyond string comparison.


No problem. See my simple example is previous post.

Wrong. If the example is in fact simple then just reproduce it
here&now.

Here is one: READ A BOOK.
Do you really need someone to recommed you a book?!?

Read a book: I have "Set Theory and its Philosophy" and "The Joy of
Sets".

Too advanced. What you didn't know was that 1) the philosophy is NOT
important, and 2) set theory is going to be presented IN FIRST-ORDER
LOGIC,
SO FIRST, YOU HAVE TO LEARN FIRST-ORDER LOGIC. You DON'T get to START
with set theory!


I tried asking for a "logic buddy",

That will also work. I am qualified.
But you have to be able to admit that you are messing up.
Most people have too much undeserved ego to use me.
....
someone who can
convert ideas into mathematical notation,

idiot: THAT is NOT a logic buddy!

Mistake in that statement. I would like a logic buddy as someone who I
can present proofs and they can point out flaws and areas to further
study.

You are not likely to get that.
The main reason why is that "I can present proofs" is just a lie:
you canNOT present proofs. You don't understand them. Even when
you were trying to quote a proof directly out of the Potter book, you
messed THAT up.

For example, in a previous thread I put forth the idea

An idea is NOT (usually) a proof.

that the
infinite set of denumerable strings can be mapped to the set of
natural numbers. People pointed out that natural numbers are finite
length. I acknowledged my lack of understanding led to a faulty proof

No, it led to something ridiculous. It was not ANY kind of proof,
faulty or otherwise.

and moved on to start studying the fininteness of natural numbers.

That does not BEAR study! PLEASE! Everybody KNOWS a finite string
when they see one (if they have in fact seen the whole string). That
actually
IS the relevant implicit assumption! It is implicit FOR A REASON! Do
NOT
study it!

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why cant I xor strings?
    ... What's right about accepting 3^7? ... IMO we have implicit subtyping of integers as vectors or column matrices ... >int ^ string, and there isn't. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Two Questions about "strlen", "strcat" and "strcpy"
    ... The reasoning is that unsigned values have a larger maximum value and ... incremental string concatenation is simplified ... fact calls to strlen, implicit or not, is the real performance ... People may write strcpy() in "hand coded assembly language" if they ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Properties
    ... Creates a private field in the same class as the property and appends ... random string to the the name of property and use that for the field. ... really any different than C# having an implicit destructor even if its not ... Instead of declaring the field outside ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Can a variable hold 2 values simultaneously - a string value and a numeric?
    ... > the same type coercion issues. ... string is implicitly coerced to the appropriate type. ... You recommended as a solution to the implicit ... > "the values" and with the format property set to a number would ...
    (comp.databases.ms-access)
  • Re: Cowboys herding cats
    ... David V. Loewe, Jr wrote: ... That the criminal justice system never makes mistakes. ... but it's implicit in what he did say.) ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)