Re: infinity

In article <MPG.1d8faf67955541dc98a296@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> You know what? I'm going to have to stop now.

Should have done so ours ago.


> I really don't have the
> extra time to do this any more, and it seems rather hopeless to get
> you all to see the obvious mistakes in this theory.

We see all the obvious ones, but they all turn out to have been made by
TO himself.


> I am going to go
> back to my hole and work on writing this all up and submitting it to
> a less contentious venue, or post it on the web and discuss things
> like that.

To the degree that the venue is numerate it will be proportionally
contentious with anyone so obviously illogical and innumerate.


> It really seems like there is this gulf between my
> perspective and yours.

Are you just noticing that? How obtuse.

> Basically, it is like the uncountable divide between the finite and
> the infinite. What you call countably infinite is for me,
> unc=boundedly finite, and what you call uncountable is for me quite
> enumerable. So, I shall stick to my infinite side of the number
> circle, and you can cluster around zero with the rest of the finites.
> Toodles for now. Enjoy your non-existent set size.

Enjoy your non-existent logic in trying to impose your idiocies on
others.

You might try sci,physics. In that nuthouse, your peculiarities might
not even be noticed.
.