
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. 
26th November 2014, 09:30 PM  #201 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

26th November 2014, 11:17 PM  #202 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110 is aimed to those who are interested in the discussed fine subject, which is rigorously defined by the abstract mathematical fact of the strict difference among carnality n>1 < N < P(N) < P(P(N)) < P(P(P(N))) < P(P(P(P(N)))) < ...
Using ∞ (as currently done among mathematicians) in order to deduce conclusions in terms of infinity is not accurate enough, simply because it does not use the well established mathematical proof of N < P(N) < P(P(N)) < P(P(P(N))) < P(P(P(P(N)))) < ... different levels of infinity, where each one of them is defined in no more than one step (no process of more than one step is involved) . 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

27th November 2014, 07:16 AM  #203 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341

You keep using those words, but do not understand what they mean.
Quote:
The things you make up, you cannot ever define, either. That indicates that you, yourself, have no idea what you are saying.
Quote:

__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

29th November 2014, 05:22 AM  #204 
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585

What? All the other posters already left Doron? I can understand that; all the talk in the world of being peaceful does not balance the acts of strife and opposition that Doron really commits.
Doron, again. If you are in a discussion, you *MUST* listen to the other side and you *MUST* concede when you are *WRONG*. If you are unable to do so, then on *any* board on the Internet, people will simply ignore you. If you look at the preceding weeks, you will find that, with the exception of Apathia, each and everyone, in just about any tone of voice possible, from friendly to arrogant, has asked you the same same thing:  Define your concepts. Not *show* your concepts, which you keep doing, but *defining* them. Put borders around them, explain why these borders are valid etc. Whatever you think, whatever you say, if you can not participate in a discussion, then in a few years, when you are gone from the planet, everything you have ever said is just stored and ignored. It won't have mattered that you existed. To change that, participate, not just direct, and concede when you are wrong. 
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually"  Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing."  Realpaladin  

30th November 2014, 05:12 AM  #205 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

Dear Dessi,
Let's simplify http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158 as follows: The serial solution: 1 worker puts N stones along an infinite road by speed N. The parallel solution: N workers put N stones along an infinite road by speed 1. So, in both cases the mission is accomplished by one step (1 worker with speed N = N workers with speed 1). By using one step for each cardinal number of the forms n>1 < N < P(N) < P(P(N)) < P(P(P(N))) < P(P(P(P(N)))) < ... it is clear that no mission of lower cardinality is accomplished if observed from higher cardinality, or in other words, the power of lower cardinality is insignificant in order to reach the power of higher cardinality. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

30th November 2014, 09:45 AM  #206 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341

Do you know what these two processes have in common with the evaluation of 0.999...? Absolutely nothing. Why do you keep bringing it up?
Do you know what's curious about your socalled solutions (aside from their irrelevance to the infinite series topic)? You so desperately try to make alephnull behave like an integer, which it isn't, so they are mathematically meaningless. All that aside, though, why haven't you found a place for alephone in any of this? Considering how much mathematics has been ignored to this point, forcing in alephone and some of its highernumbered friends should be easy for you. 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

30th November 2014, 09:47 AM  #207 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

1st December 2014, 08:20 AM  #208 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

Not even close.
You are simply missing the one step notion, no matter what cardinality>0 (finite or infinite) is used. As a result is not in your scope. Here is a concrete example (your rhetoric question) that supports my argument about you:
Originally Posted by doronshadmi
Moreover, you are totally missing the fact that a given solution in a given cardinality>0 is not satisfied if observed from higher cardinality (as written in my first quote in this post). Generally your mathematical universe is the result of no more than one level for each observation (you systematically avoiding observations of lower levels from higher levels, so there is no wonder that my theorem is not in your scope). 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st December 2014, 08:26 AM  #209 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

1st December 2014, 08:54 AM  #210 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

Perhaps you don't understand your own posts, so let me help you.
Please change "N workers" to "N integers", and walla, you have no argument. Generally, you are far far away from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st December 2014, 09:40 AM  #211 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

1st December 2014, 10:39 AM  #212 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st December 2014, 11:41 AM  #213 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341

There are infinitely many integers and the cardinality of the set of integers is alephnull. However, it is incorrect to say the number of integers is alephnull or anything semantically equivalent, including "N integers". As a colloquial convenience, the phrase and its semantic equivalents, "the number of integers is infinite", may be used, but never as a prelude to using 'inifinity' as an ordinary number.
Be that as it may, it is still irrelevant to the valuation of 0.999.... 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

1st December 2014, 02:34 PM  #214 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

N is a transfinite number, so you simply have no argument.
You so desperately try to convince yourself that I define N as an ordinary number, but no matter how hard you try you are still closed under your own misleading wishful thinking loop. jsfisher, you are far far away from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st December 2014, 02:38 PM  #215 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

Your inabilities are clearly demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=208.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

1st December 2014, 05:47 PM  #216 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341

Ah, another Doronclassic massively reedited post!
One step or a billion (or, dare I say it, infinitely many steps), it is still a process you are chasing. Moreover, whether the steps are performed sequentially or all in parallel, or any combination of the two, it is still the same number of steps. But what of that, either way, you remain fixated on process. And it still is irrelevant to the valuation of 0.999.... No process, no algorithm, just a simple limit. So simple that only rational numbers are needed. The rest of the reals (and most^{*} of the rationals for that matter) are never needed to establish 0.999... as identical to 1. The only way for you demonstrate that 0.999... and 1 are not identical is to show that 1 does not satisfy the N/epsilon requirement for the limit of the partial summations corresponding to 0.999.... ^{*}"Most" takes a figurative meaning in this parenthetical remark. 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

1st December 2014, 11:46 PM  #217 
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585

Ah, I see we are back to Doron being snide and insulting again...
I wonder what has happened to the Doron that all of his friends and family said to be a peaceloving person. Doron, how is communicating with others working out for you? What? Everyone left already? 
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually"  Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing."  Realpaladin  

2nd December 2014, 04:31 AM  #218 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

This is another example that supports my argument about your onelevel mathematical universe, as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=208.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd December 2014, 05:57 AM  #219 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341

Doron, you do not get to redefine the meanings of things to conform to your misunderstandings. The valuation of 0.999... stands at 1. Your attempts to distract with irrelevant references to power sets doesn't change that.
(Curious, though. You used to reject Cantor's Theorem. It was just wrong; Cantor was just wrong. Now, you embrace it, even though it lacks utility for your purpose. How flexible of you.) 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

2nd December 2014, 06:22 AM  #220 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

Since you are living in the past in a frozen onelevel observation of this fine subject, you and only you are responsible to your arbitrary limitations, as easily demonstrated in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=208.

__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd December 2014, 06:29 AM  #221 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd December 2014, 06:36 AM  #222 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

If observed only from N.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110 is simply not in your N_only scope. jsfisher, you simply have no argument anymore, so you are digging in the past and desperately try to convince yourself that real mathematics fits to your N_only scope. I do not redefine anything. My argument is true if n>1 < N < P(N) < P(P(N)) < P(P(P(N))) < P(P(P(P(N)))) < ... is true. Simple as that, as clearly shown in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=202. Your ∞ hands waving does not hold water. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd December 2014, 07:08 AM  #223 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

2nd December 2014, 07:22 AM  #224 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884


__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd December 2014, 08:38 AM  #225 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341

Sure you did. The decimal notation 0.999... has a welldefined meaning, that of a series. The series has a value determined by the limit of the partial summation sequence corresponding to the series. The determination of limits is welldefined.
The consequence of all that is that 0.999... is identical in value to 1. Your attempt to "observe" it differently is a redefinition. I can observe 4 differently as 5; that doesn't make it 5. Moreover, your appeal to cardinal numbers is unwarranted since they have no function in establishing the value of 0.999.... 
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

2nd December 2014, 09:33 AM  #226 
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585


__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually"  Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing."  Realpaladin  

2nd December 2014, 01:02 PM  #227 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

Sure I did not.
Not at all, it is based on the well defined mathematical fact that n>1 < N < P(N) < P(P(N)) < P(P(P(N))) < P(P(P(P(N)))) < ... Even in this simple case you fail. Observing 4 from 5 simply enables one to know that 5 > 4. There is nothing in this observation that can be interpreted as if 4 is 5. They have a function in establishing the value of 0.999..., but it clearly not in the scope of one that interpretes 4 as 5. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

2nd December 2014, 01:36 PM  #228 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

2nd December 2014, 10:54 PM  #229 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

All you have to do is to deduce a given mathematical framework in terms of cardinality, in order to provide a given solution.
For example: Finite or infinite cardinality: A given solution that is satisfied by at least some cardinality > 1, is not satisfied by some cardinality ≤ 1. Infinite cardinality: A given solution that is satisfied by at least some cardinality > N, is not satisfied by some cardinality ≤ N. A given solution that is satisfied by at least some cardinality > P(N), is not satisfied by some cardinality ≤ P(N). A given solution that is satisfied by at least some cardinality > P(P(N)), is not satisfied by some cardinality ≤ P(P(N)). A given solution that is satisfied by at least some cardinality > P(P(P(N))), is not satisfied by some cardinality ≤ P(P(P(N))). etc. ... at infinitum. A given solution that is satisfied by at least some cardinality > N, is not satisfied by some cardinality ≤ N. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

3rd December 2014, 07:00 AM  #230 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

3rd December 2014, 12:39 PM  #231 
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585


__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually"  Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing."  Realpaladin  

3rd December 2014, 01:01 PM  #232 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341


__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

3rd December 2014, 02:01 PM  #233 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

This "it" is simply cardinality, and it measures the minimal needed values that satisfy a given value, for example:
0.9+0.09+0.009 that has 3 values can't satisfy value 1, and in this case at least 0.9+0.09+0.009+... that has N+1 = N values, satisfies value 1. In case that the minimal needed values that satisfy 1 is at least P(N)+1 = P(N), 0.9+0.09+0.009+... that has N+1 = N values, can't satisfy value 1. In case that the minimal needed values that satisfy 1 is at least P(P(N))+1 = P(P(N)), no P(N)+1 = P(N) of such values satisfy value 1. Etc. ... ad infinitum. It is about the ability to satisfy a given value, as explained above. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

3rd December 2014, 02:41 PM  #234 
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,341

Just how do values satisfy a given value? What values would satisfy 42, just as an example?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(By the way, your assertion of N + 1 terms are involved is just bizarre. So is your usage of the phrase, "at least".)
Quote:
Quote:

__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!"  Monketey Ghost 

4th December 2014, 01:25 AM  #235 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

The bizarre thing here is actually your mathematical framework that excludes the different values of cardinality as an essential factor of a given solution.
As a result http://www.internationalskeptics.com...37&postcount=7, http://www.internationalskeptics.com...59&postcount=9, http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=110 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=233 are not in the scope of your mathematical framework. Moreover, the treatment of your framework about infinity (as seen in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=203) simply excludes the different values of transfinite cardinality as an essential factor of a given solution. Since your framework excludes the different values of cardinality as an essential factor of a given solution, there can't be any communication between us about this fine subject. You can enjoy your ∞ handwaving as much as you like, which uses each cardinal number separately from the other cardinal numbers, but you will not find my framework under your handwaving. Here is a concrete example of your handwaving, by using your own words that simply excludes the different values of cardinality (and in this case, transfinite cardinality) as an essential factor of a given solution. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

4th December 2014, 04:43 AM  #236 
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585


__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually"  Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing."  Realpaladin  

4th December 2014, 04:45 AM  #237 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,884

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4298 is defined by using different values of cardinality as an essential factor of a given solution, and it is definitely not in the scope of a framework that uses only each cardinal number separately from the other cardinal numbers, in order to provide a given solution.
Originally Posted by jsfisher
In order to understand it all you have to do is to realize, for example, how 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 finite series of countable 3 values is < 1 if it used among an infinite series of countable N values like 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ... The same principle holds for both cases. 
__________________
That is also over the matrix, is aware of the matrix. That is under the matrix, is unaware of the matrix. For more details, please carefully observe Prof. Edward Frenkel's video from https://youtu.be/PFkZGpN4wmM?t=697 until the end of the video. 

4th December 2014, 04:52 AM  #238 
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293

Just to be technically accurate, the limit of 0.999... stands at 1. No matter how many 9's you add to the string, the sum will never add up to 1.
0.999... is a convergent countably infinite series. Trying to make more of it than that like doronshadmi is doing or making an unprovable assertion that an infinite string of 9's would still add up to < 1 is to just generate meaningless confusing jargon. 
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent."  Galbraith, 1975 

4th December 2014, 04:52 AM  #239 
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,585

Some true words by Doron... I thoroughly enjoy the rigorously proven thing that he denotes by 'handwaving', and I sure have not found even the cornerstone of a framework by Doron in any of the 10k+ posts in over 7 years.
Doron, again, it is not the fault of the students (there have been so many, with so many different views; from Apathia who wishes you the best but does not understand your words, via Dessi who is your superior in mathematics but still can't follow you, to JsFisher and myself who are just tenacious in trying you to commit to something that is defined), but the fault of the teacher if the knowledge is never passed on. Because even *if* we all were to agree you are right, you just wait until there is something to kibitz about; you think that discussion and kibitzing makes you look smart... it does not, it makes you look quarrelsome and angry. 
__________________
"All is needed (and it is essential to my definitions) is to understand the actuality beyond the description, for example: Nothing is actually"  Doron Shadmi "But this means you actually have nothing."  Realpaladin  

4th December 2014, 04:58 AM  #240 
Skeptical about skeptics
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 14,293

As your diagram in http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=158 showed, this is true only as long as N is some finite subset of the set of natural numbers. You haven't demonstrated this to be true for a countably infinite set of natural numbers.
I'd go as far as to say that if N is the set of all natural numbers, then all of the supersets that you generate are also countably infinite. 
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent."  Galbraith, 1975 

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

