Re: Orlow cardinality question

Virgil said:
> In article <MPG.1d07c2903562f001989db4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Virgil said:
> > > In article <MPG.1d06913b345fae1c989d98@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If the reals and rationals can be infinitely many but need not
> > > > > contain anything infinitely large, how is it that the subset of
> > > > > naturals canot have the same property?
> > >
> > >
> > > > You really are stupid, Virgil. I am not wasting my time explaining it
> > > > to you for the 15th time. Look back at my other posts, including my
> > > > two proofs that this is the case. I am not wasting any more time on
> > > > you.
> > >
> > > If a previous explanation is faulty, as all of TO's have been, looking
> > > back at it does not help.
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You have counted with the argument that it can't be infinite.
> > > > > > > You haven't offered a proof, but even if you had that would
> > > > > > > still leave (a) finite or (b) not well-defined as
> > > > > > > possibilities.
> > > > >
> > > > > > If they are all finite, then the set is finite. I have proven it,
> > > > > > even if you can't follow simple math and fog up at the mention of
> > > > > > infinity.
> > > > >
> > > > > You alleged proof does not satisfy anyone competent to judge
> > > > > proofs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Information theory proof: With a set of symbols of size S, the
> > > > > > > >number of unique strings one can construct of length L is
> > > > > > > >N=S^L. If you are using a set of numbers represented as
> > > > > > > >strings in a 1:1 manner, then the same rule applies.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For sets of strings of finite size. I totally agree.
> > > > > > Okay, so how do you get an infinite set of distinct strings? You
> > > > > > either need an infinite set of symbols, in which case all strings
> > > > > > may be finite in length, or you need strings of infinite length.
> > > > > > There is no other way.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "way" is to allow strings of arbitrarily large, but finite,
> > > > > lenghts, just as one has arbitrarily large, but finite, naturals.
> > > > >
> > > > > Every natural, other than the first one, is generated by adding one
> > > > > to a previously generated natural.
> > > > >
> > > > > At what point does adding one suddenly become impossible so that
> > > > > there are no more finite naturals? NEVER!
> > > > >
> > > > > At what point does adding one to a finite natural jump the gap
> > > > > between finite and infinite and produce an infinite natural? NEVER!
> > > > >
> > > > > At what point does TO lose contact with reality? MANY!
> > > > At what point does adding an infinite number of 1's leave a finite
> > > > number with a finite value? NEVER! Go back under your rock with the
> > > > other slime, Virgil. You're too dense for words.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >So, if you want an infinite set, so N is infinite, the S^L is
> > > > > > > >infinite, which implies either S or L is infinite.
> > > > > > > And this is exactly what I meant in another thread when I said
> > > > > > > that anti- Cantorians believe that finite and infinite are
> > > > > > > really pretty similar. You are taking a result proven for
> > > > > > > finite values and assuming it is true for infinite values.
> > > > > > > Sorry. No dice.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I didn't say they were similar, although they really can be
> > > > > > treated similarly in many respects. I said that if S and L are
> > > > > > both finite, then S^L is finite. If you want infinite S^L, you
> > > > > > either need infinite S or infinite L. What part of that do you
> > > > > > not understand?
> > > > >
> > > > > The part where TO claims this is relevant to whether there must be
> > > > > a longest finite string or a largest finite natural.
> > > > So, despite all the repetition, you still cannot remember what S and
> > > > L stand for, or the formula S^L? Why am I not surprised. Go eat some
> > > > fish. Maybe you're head will work better.
> > > > >
> > > > > At what string length does it become suddenly impossible to append
> > > > > one more character?
> > > > At the length of this sentence.
> > >
> > > Then you maximum naturals are smaller than some naturals already in use.
> > > > >
> > > > > If such a string length were to exist the number of characters in
> > > > > such a string would have to be equal to the largest possible finite
> > > > > natural, but then in base 2 or above, you can express more that
> > > > > that many naturals with that many characters, a contradiction.
> > > > >
> > > > > The source of this contradiction is TO's assumptions that there is
> > > > > a maximum finite number of characters, in any base from 2 upwards,
> > > > > that can be used to represent a natural, and that there is a
> > > > > maximum finite natural.
> > >
> > > > *** you, ***. You have repeated that lie now about 100 times,
> > > > along with many others. I never said that. I said quite the opposite,
> > > > and the fact that you keep repeating that despite constant correction
> > > > and clarification from me demonstrates that you are not only an
> > > > obtuse idiot and an obnoxious jerk, but a lying piece of crap as
> > > > well. No, you don't "win". You are a loser in every respect. I doubt
> > > > you have ever even thought you had an original thought, and if you
> > > > did, you probably stole it from some other idiotic dumbell. Virgil,
> > > > eat *** and die. I waste no more time with you.
> > >
> > > When someone sinks to the level of diatribe that TO has done in the
> > > paragraph above, it signals that he has no better arguments to present.
> > >
> > > From someone more polite, it would have been a consession speech.
> > >
> > Excuse me, but I have no reason to concede
>
> That's what you may believe, but your degeneration to personal attack,
> which I have snipped, indicates otherwise.
>
My personal attacks on you are the direct result of your repeated personal
attacks on me, your lying about my positions, and your deliberately obnoxious
repetitions of canned answers and questions already asked. In my mind, you're
nothing but a troll, with no original thought and nothing to contribute. Sorry,
but you have been asking for it. You ask a reasonable question, once, and I'll
be happy to try to answer it. You slander me in the newsgroup, and you're gonna
get your face rubbed in your ***.
--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Quantcast