Re: Extrapolating linear ratios

On Dec 16, 4:12 pm, WM <mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Every set of positive even numbers contains such numbers that are
larger than the cardinal number of the set.

Every FINITE set, dumbass.
Obviously infinite sets of naturals do not contain ANY numbers larger
than the cardinality of the set, since the cardinality of the set is
infinite
but all the numbers in it are finite.
But even WITH the correction of "Every set" to "Every finite set".
You are STILL OVERcomplicating this. Every finite set of natural
numbers
that is MISSING ANY numbers SMALLER than its cardinality contains
numbers
larger than its cardinality (if you start from 1; if you start from 0
then that becomes
larger-than-or-equal-to).

The larger the set is, the more such numbers are contained in it.
FOR FINITE sets.

Therefore it is nonsensical to
claim that an infinite set of positive even numbers contains only such
numbers that are smaller than the cardinal number of that set.

The usual idiotic passage from the finite case to the infinite.
It IS NOT nonsensical for the infinite case TO BE DIFFERENT from the
finite one. What you are saying here boils VERY quickly back down to
the usual Dedekind-definition of infinite: a finite set (Whether of
naturals
OR ANYTHING ELSE) canNOT be put into 1-1 correspondence with any
proper subset of itself. BUT AN INFINITE ONE CAN. What you are
saying
is that because this can't happen for finite sets, it therefore can't
happen for
infinite ones either. BUT IT CAN.
One COULD go on: every finite set of naturals has a last (greatest)
element.
But NO infinite one does.
All your *** amounts to is claiming that because no finite set lack a
last
element, no infinite one can either.
YOU ARE JUST FULL OF ***.
Finite and infinite ARE DIFFERENT!

And the SADDEST thing about this is, WHEN WE GIVE YOU THE CLASSIC
EXAMPLE
of a generalization about sets that DOES carry over from the finite to
the infinite, namely,
CANTOR'S THEOREM, namely, the fact that the cardinality of p(s) is 2^
(cardinality of s),
YOU DENY it!!!!

*DAMN*, you're STUPID!!!

There is not the least reason to believe so except the deplorable
accident that somebody defined aleph_0 as being larger than any
natural number. That is provably wrong.

It is ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE for a DEFINITION to be provably wrong,
unless it is defining something that provably can't exist.

aleph_0 is neither larger nor
smaller than equal to any natural number. aleph_0 is a quality,

No, it's a set.

describing the possibility of a bijection with N

DIP***: If you have conceded the existence of N
THEN YOU HAVE ALREADY CONCEDED THE ARGUMENT!!
Aleph_0 *IS* N !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.

Quantcast