วีดีโอ

A man in womans clothing

we are walford , wonderful walford.

@@twotoxicbombs730 Hi! Yes indeed. Wonderful Walford! All together! I loved that school. Great staff and fab students. Wishing you a good week.

"Sarah", did your silly nativity baby jesus ever turn up? Hahahaha. Spastic

You know HIM, HE used to come to your school. His God given DNA will always be male.

@@DTH1661 you see this right here is the bullshit she rightly argues against

Thanks for the suggestion: after hearing the great discussion I did want to go back to the lecture: the Prof starts talking about Renault about 8.30

"In mathematics, a set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. For example, the numbers 2, 4, and 6 are distinct objects when considered separately, but when they are considered collectively they form a single set of size three, written {2,4,6}" transfinite cardinals (fancy term meaning infinity lol) obviously doesn't apply within that definition since it can't be "well-defined" and you can't "collect" an infinity of anything. Seriously, you can play with words all you want, but the concept is logically defunct no matter how much you try and twist and force your way around it.

I'm arrogant because it is justified to not accept something without solid proof and sound logic. In your second example you are describing potential infinity (1+1+1+1...), it's never ending and never complete and at any point still is finite, you never actually reach infinity, that's the entire point of it. Trying to treat it as a totality within a set is counter to what it means and will lead to one self induced problem after another. Yes i am saying that there isn't an actual infinity of natural numbers, if there is then answer me, at what point does it stop being finite? (answer = never). The "set of all natural numbers" is equivalent to the "set of all odd numbers". Sounds sensible to you? But let's not stop there, let's pretend having an infinity of cardinals because obviously despite all infinities being infinitely large, some are infinitely smaller/larger then others. Duh. And then you have these idiot mathematicians proclaiming "well we just have to accept the paradoxical nature of it all". No thanks, I'll stick to the basics of epistemology, you have fun playing in fantasy land though. And what is this "math" all based on again, oh right, a bunch of assumptions, i mean "axioms", excuse me. If virtually all mathematicians accept this then virtually all mathematicians are being dishonest, incompetent and/or lazy.

Haha ok, let's talk about who's ignorant later. Abstract thinking is one of my great strengths, partly because i love it, but whatever you say. I'm not really the one having problem understanding my own arguments though. In your previous post you gave an example of how you could define a set "just positive integers". These are the counting numbers and they go 1, 2, 3, etc. They are never complete, and go towards "potential infinity" (coined by aristotle, he had so much trouble thinking in abstract terms that guy and so full of bogus) You can't just reach around them and grab them all and pour them in a set. The entire concept of infinity IS that it's never ending and never complete. You haven't explained how you'd be able to define infinity in a set, but you pretend you can so it counts i guess? I've seen Numberphile a couple of times, that's not mathematics on a high level and it doesn't address the meat of my skepticism, they also give plenty of examples for which they don't have an answer, and i comment them for that, but i'm interested in the claims made and how logically sound they are. I don't care how smart they are, i don't care how smart i am, i care about epistemology and argumentation and the basics of logic. I never go "my IQ is 1xx so just accept my claim without argument". You were talking about virtually all mathematicians TODAY. If you look at history then an overwhelming majority disagrees with your notions up until not even a century ago, and that includes funnily enough Gauss who was one of the most outspoken to completely reject infinity. But whatevs, i'm ignorant, remember. Maybe you are the one that's ignorant, maybe you should investigate the history of infinity, maybe you should be mindful of not accepting claims without actually investigating it.

Some quotes for your information (euphemism for calling you ignorant) "Until then, no one envisioned the possibility that infinities come in different sizes, and moreover, mathematicians had no use for “actual infinity.” The arguments using infinity, including the Differential Calculus of Newton and Leibniz, do not require the use of infinite sets. (T. Jech [1])" (The "until then" refers to before in particular Cantor) - "Infinite totalities do not exist in any sense of the word (i.e., either really or ideally). More precisely, any mention, or purported mention, of infinite totalities is, literally, meaningless. (A. Robinson [10, p. 507])" (I bet his IQ is very low and doesn't understand abstraction 😢) - "There is no actual infinity, that the Cantorians have forgotten and have been trapped by contradictions. (H. Poincaré [Les mathématiques et la logique III, Rev. métaphys. morale 14 (1906) p. 316])" (maybe he should've watched numberphile, tss) - "When the objects of discussion are linguistic entities [...] then that collection of entities may vary as a result of discussion about them. A consequence of this is that the "natural numbers" of today are not the same as the "natural numbers" of yesterday. (D. Isles [4])" (don't they know "virtually all mathematicians today" completely ignore what they're saying and don't even attempt at addressing it? Srly) - "During the renaissance, particularly with Bruno, actual infinity transfers from God to the world. The finite world models of contemporary science clearly show how this power of the idea of actual infinity has ceased with classical (modern) physics. Under this aspect, the inclusion of actual infinity into mathematics, which explicitly started with G. Cantor only towards the end of the last century, seems displeasing. Within the intellectual overall picture of our century ... actual infinity brings about an impression of anachronism. (P. Lorenzen[7])" (HERETIC!) - "I protest against the use of infinite magnitude as something completed, which is never permissible in mathematics. Infinity is merely a way of speaking, the true meaning being a limit which certain ratios approach indefinitely close, while others are permitted to increase without restriction.[1] (C.F. Gauss [in a letter to Schumacher, 12 July 1831])" (lalalalala, not listening... 🙉) and so on and so forth...