Re: THERE ARE oo NUMBERS IN N

From: |-|erc (H_at_r.c)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:34:55 +1000

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> >>
> >> No, in calculus the oo is a notational convenience to say "increases
> >> without bound".
> >>
> >> It has nothing to do with cardinality.
> >>
> >
> > THEN IT CANT BE ALEPH-1 THEN CAN IT YOU FUCKING IDIOT
>
> The symbol 'oo' can't really be meaningfully said to be aleph_0 either.
>

That is a self evident false statement.

YOU ARE THE IDIOTS who divided up infinity, you took our notion of infinity

and divided it into 2. OUR infinity, countable oo, mappable infinity, you called aleph_0.

YOU DIDNT INVENT ALEPH_0, YOU INVENTED ALEPH_1 + extra crappings.

Your theries of infinity have NO ROLE IN ANY MATHEMATICS.
oo is useful however and you DICKHEADS want to reign over it.
to such an extent you won't let people use the term INFINITY!

WHAT A FUCKING MOB OF ARISTOCRATIC COWARDS

TO TOP IT OFF YOU WONT EVEN ANSWER SIMPLE DEMONSTRATION
THAT ALL YOUR UNTOUCHABLE MATHEMATICS GETS COUNTED ANWAY

Now don't be a smug FUCKHEAD ghost and quote some whiny formula and say
THATS RIGHT BECAUSE ITS IN THE BOOK. READ AND THINK FOR ONCE
PHANTOM HEAD

Herc

Quantcast