Re: Cantor and the binary tree

Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> David Kastrup said:
>> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > You are an idiot, Virgil. You can't even keep straight what has
>> > been said after the 100th reiteration. I said you can have an
>> > infinitely large SET of rationals or reals without infinitely
>> > large VALUES, because they are DENSE sets (which you should be
>> > able to relate to), but that the naturals are SPARSE (equivalent
>> > to your neuronal distribution) so that one cannot have an
>> > infinite set of them without an infinite range of values.
>>
>> Quite so. Of course the range of values is infinite, it is only
>> every single value itself that is finite. You are again conflating
>> the properties of a set of values with those of the values
>> themselves.

> You are being retarded.

Given the show you produce, you should probably be careful with
throwing around compliments like that.

> If the range of values is infinite, that means there is a value in
> the set that is infinitely greater than another value in the set.

No, it doesn't. That means that every given distance in the set will
be exceeded by some pair of values, but it does not mean that a fixed
pair can be found that will serve for _all_ distances.

You are suffering from the Mückenheim quantifier dyslexia.

> A value that is infinitely greater than a finite value is
> infinite.

But there is no such value. But neither is there a maximum distance.

> I am not conflating anything inappropriately.

>> > You are on the edge of total ignore, being deliberately ignorant.
>>
>> Pot, kettle, black.
> You too.

Actually, the "pot, kettle, black" saying was inappropriate because it
would insinuate that you and Virgil were both similarly wrong. But
that is not the case. It is merely you who are as wrong as you claim
Virgil is.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
.

Quantcast