Never ever accept anything your math lecturer tells you, if after you ask ...

[Eram semper recta]

Never ever accept anything your math lecturer tells you, if after you ask "Why is it defined this way?", the idiot tells you: "That's the definition, just use it."

The Wikipedia Moronica from which an idiot like Malum subscribes to states:

<<A countable set is a set with the same cardinality (number of elements) as some subset of the set of natural numbers.>

That definition is WRONG because it excludes an "infinite" set. LMAO.
Doesn't Malum believe in "infinite sets" any more? Chuckle. What a moron.

Malum (Oops-Allah Uppsala?) and Klyver (Chambers) are such fucking cranks!

According to my unparalleled genius, I can tell you that Cantor chose N for a very good reason. Imagine trying to say:

<<A countable set is a set with the same cardinality (number of elements) as some subset of the set of **real** numbers.>

You'd have a real problem here because the imaginary "reals" cannot be listed systematically, ie there is no index possible to anther set.

An off the topic thought occurred to me just now: Do you suppose that Cantor's delusional acolytes might try and extend the definition to "real sets"? LMAO In which case, they might say:

A set is twice countable if it can be placed into a bijection with R.

What fucking morons!!!!!

The mainstream math academics just keep getting dumber and dumber.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>That definition is WRONG because it excludes an "infinite" set. LMAO.

It excludes it not. N is a subset of N so it includes infinite sets. You conflate proper subset with subset and even if one says proper subset, we have infinite subsets.

>According to my unparalleled genius, I can tell you that Cantor chose N for a very good reason. Imagine trying to say

Such a genius that you don't realise that there are infinite subsets of N?

>You'd have a real problem here because the imaginary "reals" cannot be listed systematically, ie there is no index possible to anther set.

R can be indexed by R

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 13:45:50 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >That definition is WRONG because it excludes an "infinite" set. LMAO.
> It excludes it not.

It does.

> N is a subset of N so it includes infinite sets. You conflate proper subset with subset and even if one says proper subset, we have infinite subsets.

From the MIT website:

"A set is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."

http://www-math.mit.edu/~djk/calculus_beginners/chapter01/section04.html

That definition is CORRECT. What it's telling you, crank from Oops-Allah (Uppsala uni), is that a set is countable if its members can be indexed.

Boy, you're such an idiot. I am going to write to Uppsala university soon. You need to be shut up for good, because trolls and cranks like you are incorrigible. Get yourself ready for another job! May I suggest Janitor?

> >According to my unparalleled genius, I can tell you that Cantor chose N for a very good reason. Imagine trying to say
> Such a genius that you don't realise that there are infinite subsets of N?

I do not recognise or accept infinity because unlike you, my brain is not infected with syphilis. Your definition leaves out the possibility of an infinite set. Either way, the definition is SHIT because nothing Cantor did is worth and attention.

> >You'd have a real problem here because the imaginary "reals" cannot be listed systematically, ie there is no index possible to anther set.
> R can be indexed by R

FALSE. The fact that neither you or your fellow crank Klyver can show this means you have no refutation.

For any set to index itself, its members must be distinct. That is the first property one learns about sets. You cannot say

"A <<real set>> is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."

Get it, imbecile?

LMAO.

So have at it crank! Start with 0 and show me how you would systematically name a first, second and third member, etc.

<PLONK>

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>It does.

It doesn't because {1,2,3,4,5,...} is an infinite subset of N

>"A set is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."

A colloquial way to say a bijection with a subset of N

>That definition is CORRECT. What it's telling you, crank from Oops-Allah (Uppsala uni), is that a set is countable if its members can be indexed.

All sets can be indexed by themselves, but not all sets are countable.

>Boy, you're such an idiot. I am going to write to Uppsala university soon. You need to be shut up for good, because trolls and cranks like you are incorrigible. Get yourself ready for another job! May I suggest Janitor?

You do not even understand what they say or what the actual definitions are. You are one sad man.

>I do not recognise or accept infinity because unlike you, my brain is not infected with syphilis. Your definition leaves out the possibility of an infinite set. Either way, the definition is SHIT because nothing Cantor did is worth and attention.

It doesn't because again, {1,2,3,4,5,...} is an infinite subset of N so it works.

>FALSE. The fact that neither you or your fellow crank Klyver can show this means you have no refutation.

Correct, as I showed, any set can be an index set by the definition of index set.

I can easily index R with R
f(r)=r_r=r

Is an indexing of R with R, not very interesting but it is.

>For any set to index itself, its members must be distinct. That is the first property one learns about sets. You cannot say

All members in a set are distinct. Including in R

>"A <<real set>> is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."

Again, a colloquial way to say it is in bijection with a subset of N

>So have at it crank! Start with 0 and show me how you would systematically name a first, second and third member, etc.

if I can show it is in bijection to a subset of N it suffices

for N, Q and Z I can hence they are all countable.

[Dan Christensen]

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of JG's fake math

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 3:40:56 AM UTC-4, I am Super Rectum (aka John Gabriel (JG), Troll Boy) wrote:

> Never ever accept anything cranks like Mr. Rectum tell you...

JG here claims to have a discovered a shortcut to mastering calculus without using limits. Unfortunately for him, this means he has no workable a definition of the derivative of a function. It blows up for functions as simple f(x)=|x|. Or even f(x)=0. As a result, he has had to ban 0, negative numbers and instantaneous rates of change rendering his goofy little system quite useless. What a moron!

Forget calculus. JG has also banned all axioms because he cannot even derive the most elementary results of basic arithmetic, e.g. 2+2=4. Such results require the use of axioms, so he must figure he's now off the hook. Again, what a moron!

Even at his advanced age (60+?), John Gabriel is STILL struggling with basic, elementary-school arithmetic. As he has repeatedly posted here:

"There are no points on a line."
--April 12, 2021

"Pi is NOT a number of ANY kind!"
--July 10, 2020

"1/2 not equal to 2/4"
--October 22, 2017

“1/3 does NOT mean 1 divided by 3 and never has meant that”
-- February 8, 2015

"3 =< 4 is nonsense.”
--October 28, 2017

"Zero is not a number."
-- Dec. 2, 2019

"0 is not required at all in mathematics, just like negative numbers."
-- Jan. 4, 2017

“There is no such thing as an empty set.”
--Oct. 4, 2019

“3 <=> 2 + 1 or 3 <=> 8 - 5, etc, are all propositions” (actually all are meaningless gibberish)
--Oct. 22, 2019

No math genius our JG, though he actually lists his job title as “mathematician” at Linkedin.com. Apparently, they do not verify your credentials.

Though really quite disturbing, interested readers should see: “About the spamming troll John Gabriel in his own words...” (lasted updated March 10, 2020) at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.math/PcpAzX5pDeY/1PDiSlK_BwAJ

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog a http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

[Eram semper recta]

On Tuesday, 21 September 2021 at 15:12:17 UTC+3, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> >It does.
>
> It doesn't because {1,2,3,4,5,...} is an infinite subset of N

No, moron, no. {1,2,3,4,5,...} is N according to mainstream doctrine. "Infinite subset" is hand waving art. LMAO.

> >"A set is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."
> A colloquial way to say a bijection with a subset of N

Again, no. Saying "...a bijection with N or a subset of N" is an "easy to memorise" way for naive idiot sycophants like you.

> >That definition is CORRECT. What it's telling you, crank from Oops-Allah (Uppsala uni), is that a set is countable if its members can be indexed.
> All sets can be indexed by themselves, but not all sets are countable.

No idiot, no. First of all, the members of a given set must be distinct and therefore identifiable.

> >I do not recognise or accept infinity because unlike you, my brain is not infected with syphilis. Your definition leaves out the possibility of an infinite set. Either way, the definition is SHIT because nothing Cantor did is worth and attention.

> It doesn't because again, {1,2,3,4,5,...} is an infinite subset of N so it works.

Oops-Allah! LMAO.

> >FALSE. The fact that neither you or your fellow crank Klyver can show this means you have no refutation.

> Correct, as I showed, any set can be an index set by the definition of index set.

You've never shown anything besides the fact that you are an utter idiot. Sadly, you continue to display your stupidity for the whole world to see.

>
> I can easily index R with R
> f(r)=r_r=r

LMAO. Whatever you scribbled there will not convince anyone unless they are delusional morons like you.

>
> Is an indexing of R with R, not very interesting but it is.

It's nothing of the sort. f(r)=r_r is a mapping where r is assumed to be some magnitude, but there is no evidence that r is in fact a number of any kind. I could write f(magnitude) = some_magnitude, but it would not prove anything about magnitude or some_magnitude.

> >For any set to index itself, its members must be distinct. That is the first property one learns about sets. You cannot say

> All members in a set are distinct. Including in R

LMAO. Elements are only distinct if you can NAME them systematically. So far, you haven't even gotten close, you silly crank!

> >"A <<real set>> is said to be countable, if you can make a list of its members. By a list we mean that you can find a first member, a second one, and so on, and eventually assign to each member an integer of its own, perhaps going on forever."

> >So have at it crank! Start with 0 and show me how you would systematically name a first, second and third member, etc.

> if I can show it is in bijection to a subset of N it suffices

BOOM! You can't show that R is in a bijection with N, you stupid Swede ape! That would be in contradiction of one of your core beliefs: the set of real numbers is uncountable.

Man, you're a moron deluxe! ROFLMAO.

>
> for N, Q and Z I can hence they are all countable.

A fallacy that's called "refutation that is not a refutation".

Hint: I was referring to the imaginary set of "real numbers". Of course, N, Q and Z are countable, because they are indexable.

[Eram semper recta]

A mainstream answer to the question "Does a set contain itself?"

<<No: it follows from the axiom of regularity that no set can contain itself as an element. (Any set contains itself as a subset, of course.) And that's a good thing, because sets containing themselves is exactly the kind of thing that leads to Russell's paradox and other associated problems.>>

The hilarious part about all the bullshit hand waving is that a set can be a subset of itself, but not an 'element' of itself. LMAO.

Sets are everything and sets are nothing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvxjOMW6Q9w

I demonstrate in the above video how a certain professor Harvey gets himself into hot water without even trying! It's entertaining also!

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>No, moron, no. {1,2,3,4,5,...} is N according to mainstream doctrine. "Infinite subset" is hand waving art. LMAO.

Moron is you because it IS a subset of N :) N is a subset of itself just like every set is!

>No idiot, no. First of all, the members of a given set must be distinct and therefore identifiable.

All members of a set are distinct, that is what makes them members of the set. So this applies to litearlly all sets.

>You've never shown anything besides the fact that you are an utter idiot. Sadly, you continue to display your stupidity for the whole world to see.

You're talking about yourself. I can, and HAVE, cite loads of sources that shows you wrong :)

>Whatever you scribbled there will not convince anyone unless they are delusional morons like you.

Demonstrating again you do not understand mathematics.

>It's nothing of the sort. f(r)=r_r is a mapping where r is assumed to be some magnitude, but there is no evidence that r is in fact a number of any kind.

By definition of the function it is a real number.

>I could write f(magnitude) = some_magnitude, but it would not prove anything about magnitude or some_magnitude.

Correct, but what I gave is an indexing of real numbers by using real numbers.

>Elements are only distinct if you can NAME them systematically. So far, you haven't even gotten close, you silly crank!

I name them all bob, are they still distinct then?

"Name" is not a mathematical term so it is meaningless. Distinct in mathematics means a ~= b, as in a and b are distinct if they are not equal.

>BOOM! You can't show that R is in a bijection with N, you stupid Swede ape!

never said you could because R is uncountable. I have said that R can be indexed not that it is countable and no, those are not equivalent.

>A fallacy that's called "refutation that is not a refutation".

Like yours?

>The hilarious part about all the bullshit hand waving is that a set can be a subset of itself, but not an 'element' of itself. LMAO.

How is this in any way funny?

Subset just means the members of the first set all exists in the other.

All members of A exists in A, so A is a subset of A

[Eram semper recta]

A mainstream answer to the question "Does a set contain itself?"

<<No: it follows from the axiom of regularity that no set can contain itself as an element. (Any set contains itself as a subset, of course.) And that's a good thing, because sets containing themselves is exactly the kind of thing that leads to Russell's paradox and other associated problems.>>

The hilarious part about all the bullshit hand waving is that a set can be a subset of itself, but not an 'element' of itself. LMAO.

Sets are everything and sets are nothing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvxjOMW6Q9w

I demonstrate in the above video how a certain professor Harvey gets himself into hot water without even trying! It's entertaining also!

Set theorists live by laws they create so that whenever their bullshit fails, they have to introduce a new law in the form of a refined definition or expression.

By definition the prefix "sub" means "included in", but since mainstream set theorist morons find themselves in a pickle, they introduce the pre-prefix "proper". LMAO. "Proper subset" means a set p is contained in q and that q has elements which p does not. Since Cantor polluted mathematics with his delusions, there have been endless problems (paradoxes and contradictions) with set theory. A set can contain other sets as elements, but it cannot contain itself as an element. LMAO. The instant retort here is that element is different from subset. Well, that is clearly illogical because also according to set theory, elements themselves are also "sets", whatever the fuck is a set because there is no formal definition of "set".

If you are a student reading this, then take my advice and don't waste a minute more of your time studying this bullshit which leads absolutely nowhere. It's not mathematics and it certainly contains no common sense, never mind logic.

Set theory is just CRAP. Period.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

>Set theorists live by laws they create so that whenever their bullshit fails, they have to introduce a new law in the form of a refined definition or expression.

They introduce nothing of the sort. The same 9 axioms have lasted for a century now, give or take. Not changed.

>By definition the prefix "sub" means "included in", but since mainstream set theorist morons find themselves in a pickle, they introduce the pre-prefix "proper".

A thing is included in itself :) So again, not an issue but the issue here is not set theory but rather that you do not understand how it is used in mathematics.

>LMAO. "Proper subset" means a set p is contained in q and that q has elements which p does not.

Congratulation, you finally understand something increadibly basic. Want a gold star?

>Since Cantor polluted mathematics with his delusions

Nope, he revolutoinized it like many other around 1900

>there have been endless problems (paradoxes and contradictions) with set theory.

Yet you have been unable to produce a single one that isn't either you misunderstanding it (like not knowing that every set is a subset of itself) or just "doesn't fit Gabriels choice of system"

>A set can contain other sets as elements, but it cannot contain itself as an element.

Correct, that is the axiom of regularity. This is a non-issue.

>LMAO. The instant retort here is that element is different from subset.

The relation "subset of" and relation "member of" are two different relations so you cannot equate them.

>Well, that is clearly illogical because also according to set theory, elements themselves are also "sets"

Correct, which is not an issue here. If you think these are issues it demonstrates your ignorance more htan anything.

>, whatever the fuck is a set because there is no formal definition of "set".

There is, the objects of ZFC :)

>If you are a student reading this, then take my advice and don't waste a minute more of your time studying this bullshit which leads absolutely nowhere. It's not mathematics and it certainly contains no common sense, never mind logic.

Common sense it lacks because it is based on formalized logic that even a computer can work on. But logical it is.

>Set theory is just CRAP. Period.

It is more that you do not understand things.

We have demonstrated here you cannot differentiate between the relation e and relation c

[NewAge Prophet]

Refreshed due to troll activity.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

It isn't trolling pointing out where you're wrong.

[NewAge Prophet]

It is trolling when you confirm with your every comment that you are a troll and that's what you do. I mean even the infamous troll Dan Christensen seems to have mellowed compared to you. Now that's a poke in your eye. LMAO.

If you have nothing to say, the best practice is to abstain from taking a dump on the thread by repeating your drivel over and over again - so typical of a troll.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

To be a troll I have to say things for the purpsoe of antagonizing people. I have no intent of antagonizing anyone. My intent is correcting you where you're wrong and boy there are many places where you are!

You repeat your drivel, so by your definition, you are a troll!

You are quite the hypocrite!

[Eram semper recta]

All we have are troll comments and nothing of substance.

[markus...@gmail.com]

It doesn't exclude infinite sets. The even positive numbers are a strict subset of all natural numbers and they are infinitely many.

[markus...@gmail.com]

Well, if you want to you can just view set theory as a logical system of manipulating symbols: the axioms just tell you how you are allowed to manipulate a logical formula.

[NewAge Prophet]

You can't view set theory as anything but that which it is: garbage.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

yet you can find no issue with it other than it doesn't fit your narrative.

[Eram semper recta]

Obvious drivel.

Notice how you are never able to argue against the topic? Why is that?

Answer: Because a crank like YOU cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Seriously Malum, do you have so much time on your hands that you feel the need to SHIT all over my threads?

Am I sooooo important to you, that you can't resist your pathological fascination with me?

Get a life kiddo! You're not even 30 yet? Try find a girlfriend or boyfriend and get laid soon! Do what your Daddy did.

[zelos...@gmail.com]

Notice how you can never argue against anyone bringing up things beyond highschool mathematics and you always call it drivel? Why is that?

>Answer: Because a crank like YOU cannot be convinced even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Comes from the one that cannot be convinced by anything, not even that he cannot cite a definition correctly when we provide links to the actual definitions you continue to spew the wrong one.

>Seriously Malum, do you have so much time on your hands that you feel the need to SHIT all over my threads?

I feel no need for it, which is why when I got more important things to do I don't bother :) You are however entertaining to show wrong.

Am I sooooo important to you, that you can't resist your pathological fascination with me?

>Get a life kiddo! You're not even 30 yet? Try find a girlfriend or boyfriend and get laid soon! Do what your Daddy did.

I got a life thank you very much :) Unlike you I don't try to convince people that some shit work is important. That is all you've done, made some shit.

[markus...@gmail.com]

I agree that Zelos should get a life, and so should I. Arguing flat Earthers and "geniuses" on the Internet has really taken a considerable amount of time from me. It is almost like an addiction. The plus side, I guess, is all the laughs and fun moments cranks on the Internet can give you.