|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 30, 2017 14:30:14 GMT
This is the part that always kills me: Do what? What do we need to do? Vote for green politicians and use less electricity? I've heard that one before. Pathetic. Here is what I believe the real problem is: And it isn't going to be stopped. It is going to do what it is foretold to do. All that can be done is to prepare for the aftermath, which is being done as quietly as possible, and keep the public stupid and distracted. That is why the "global warming" scam was invented. Saving the planet has little or nothing to do with it. Evidence? You're looking at it, slob. That's the picture that Google Sky saw fit to censor. Do you have any evidence of "global warming?"
|
|
|
Post by Superdude6091 on Jun 30, 2017 14:31:38 GMT
Because not having a TV is really shit.
Not having a TV anymore is one of the best things that happened to me. No you not having access to a computer would be the best thing for you and this board.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 30, 2017 14:32:55 GMT
Not having a TV anymore is one of the best things that happened to me. No you not having access to a computer would be the best thing for you and this board. Piss off, Supes.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 30, 2017 14:35:52 GMT
You're looking at it, slob. That's the picture that Google Sky saw fit to censor. Do you have any evidence of "global warming?" So your "evidence" is to repeat lies from Youtube quacks. Okay then.
|
|
|
Post by Superdude6091 on Jun 30, 2017 14:37:53 GMT
No you not having access to a computer would be the best thing for you and this board. Piss off, Supes. How many times have you said that to people? How many times has it worked?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 30, 2017 15:27:10 GMT
It is possible to assign a one-to-one correspondence between points of two spaces with different dimensions. For example, mapping from a plane to a line can be done as follows: Each point in the plane has a cartesian coordinate of the form (a3a2a1.f1f2f3, b3b2b1.g1g2g3) (for a point with 3 digits to the left and right of the decimal point for each coordinate). for example (456.789, 123.456) has a3 = 4, a2 = 5, f1 = 7, b3 = 1, g1 = 4, etc.). This can be mapped to the point on the line as a3b3a2b2a1b1.f1g1f2g2f3g3. In the example, the corresponding point on the line is 415263.748596. This works even if the decimal expansion is infinite: (1/3, 2/3) = (.333333333...., .666666666...) maps to .3636363636363636... = 4/11 That only works because geometry accepts the infinite density of coordinates. Of course you can "map" anything onto a line that has an infinite number of coordinates between any two coordinates on it. It's not like you'll run out of coordinates. There is just no reason to do that. Determining the cardinality of the set of points in a space is a reason (see below). Utter nonsense. Many fields of mathematics deal with measurement in an abstract way (Boolean algebra, group theory). The idea that math and infinity are "not good friends" is completely wrong. Mathematics provides the best insight into infinity and related concepts like cardinality via set theory. It is through set theory that we can distinguish between countably infinite sets (eg. the set of integers) and non-countably infinite sets (the set of real numbers, points in a plane, etc.). Establishing a one-to-one correspondence between sets is a technique to determine the cardinality of sets. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number 4/11 and .3636... are alternate representations of a rational number and have the same status.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 17:52:29 GMT
You're looking at it, slob. That's the picture that Google Sky saw fit to censor. Do you have any evidence of "global warming?" So your "evidence" is to repeat lies from Youtube quacks. Okay then. Of course. Nothing is true in Erjen's world unless a youtube video made by a dribbling moron has told him about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 17:54:05 GMT
This is the part that always kills me: Do what? What do we need to do? Vote for green politicians and use less electricity? I've heard that one before. Pathetic. Here is what I believe the real problem is: And it isn't going to be stopped. It is going to do what it is foretold to do. All that can be done is to prepare for the aftermath, which is being done as quietly as possible, and keep the public stupid and distracted. That is why the "global warming" scam was invented. Saving the planet has little or nothing to do with it. Believing just what you're told like a good little puppet. It's cute.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Jun 30, 2017 17:56:28 GMT
Cheating scientist do pop up from time to time, but the thing is, that if they are caught (and they most often are), they will never work again. If I submit my results and conclusions, there will be a hearing where a panel check them out, after they find no faults, others can read it to (like you), so I will always be aware of that my results and conclusions will be tested by someone else (this is actually something science want's other scientists to do, we are always trying to prove ourselves wrong). You have most definitely been one of those trying scientific results in high school, when you destilled something or made magnesium burn. Yes, those that don't believe in that humanity can change the climate don't know much about the scientific method or are on an agenda. It is actually those that you need to worry about. There are a hell of a lot more money to be made from oil, than from science. That should make you stop and think. I'm not rich, I will probably never be rich (if I don't win the lottery, but as I never buy lottery tickets,it is very unlikely to happen), I just want to save the planet, like many of us in that field do. I don't believe you. That doesn't mean you're not sincere, of course. For all I know you may believe what you say. www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.htmlCinemachinery tried the "big oil" angle a few times when I talked about this topic. I expect as much. Obama promised to explore alternative fuel sources, and I must admit he certainly did keep that promise, but after trillions of dollars were poured into exploration nothing really changed. Don't you think it might be better to oppose the oil companies directly instead of trying to lay a guilt trip on those of us who are fed up with falsified scientific research? The climate is changing all right, but if I had the power to cut off the funding for the "global warming" scam I would do it, and then you would see how fast interest in saving the planet wanes. Prison Planet? Oh ErJen, you never fail to amuse with your stupidity.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 30, 2017 18:22:22 GMT
This is the part that always kills me: Do what? What do we need to do? Vote for green politicians and use less electricity? I've heard that one before. Pathetic. Here is what I believe the real problem is: And it isn't going to be stopped. It is going to do what it is foretold to do. All that can be done is to prepare for the aftermath, which is being done as quietly as possible, and keep the public stupid and distracted. That is why the "global warming" scam was invented. Saving the planet has little or nothing to do with it. Believing just what you're told like a good little puppet. It's cute. You mean like......believing in "global warming?" Oh, and do remember to cut your lights off when you're not using them, so that somewhere in the Arctic the life of a polar bear cub will be saved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2017 18:35:27 GMT
Believing just what you're told like a good little puppet. It's cute. You mean like......believing in "global warming?" No puppet, I mean the batshit crazy stuff you buy into to keep the petrodollars rolling for the globalists who pull your strings.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 30, 2017 21:50:41 GMT
several things considered individually here. Almost anything is going to matter to someone or other. You may expound. It is a reason according to whom? That is exactly why it is important to be careful with "infinite" properties and keep them separate from algebra and actual measurements. You should not use that as an excuse to pretend that "cardinality" means either "quantity" or "measurable." The key word here being "representations." Calculus has some very exacting terminology that can help with these problems. The sum of the series of three times (ten to the nth power) where 'n' goes from -1 to -infinity "approaches the limit" of one-third. Quite many people would rather say the sum of the infinite series is "equal" to one-third. The difference not important in any "practical" or currently "measurable" way. One way to consider the difference between the infinite series and the actual stable number is one divided by infinity (which many would like to be another way to represent zero), but that requires using infinity algebraically, which is not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 30, 2017 22:51:13 GMT
several things considered individually here. Almost anything is going to matter to someone or other. You may expound. It is a reason according to whom? That is exactly why it is important to be careful with "infinite" properties and keep them separate from algebra and actual measurements. You should not use that as an excuse to pretend that "cardinality" means either "quantity" or "measurable." The key word here being "representations." Calculus has some very exacting terminology that can help with these problems. The sum of the series of three times (ten to the nth power) where 'n' goes from -1 to -infinity "approaches the limit" of one-third. Quite many people would rather say the sum of the infinite series is "equal" to one-third. The difference not important in any "practical" or currently "measurable" way. One way to consider the difference between the infinite series and the actual stable number is one divided by infinity (which many would like to be another way to represent zero), but that requires using infinity algebraically, which is not allowed. Almost anything is going to matter to someone or other. You may expound. It is a reason according to whom?
I brought it up because Erjen suggested in this thread that 2D space has fewer points than 3D space (in fact they are the same).
That is exactly why it is important to be careful with "infinite" properties and keep them separate from algebra and actual measurements.
Yeah, really bad stuff can happen if you're careless with infinity. It can permanently fry your computer. Worse than a kid with matches and gasoline. Mathematicians have really, really high insurance rates because of the danger. Y ou should not use that as an excuse to pretend that "cardinality" means either "quantity" or "measurable."
But it does. Did you read the article about Aleph numbers? One way to consider the difference between the infinite series and the actual stable number is one divided by infinity (which many would like to be another way to represent zero), but that requires using infinity algebraically, which is not allowed.
What does the sum of an infinite series have to do with division by infinity? If the sum of an infinite series converges, then it will have a clearly defined finite value, as in my examples.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 30, 2017 23:09:37 GMT
Almost anything is going to matter to someone or other. You may expound. It is a reason according to whom?
I brought it up because Erjen suggested in this thread that 2D space has fewer points than 3D space (in fact they are the same).
If by the "same" you mean that infinity "equals" infinity, then perhaps, but there are obvious qualitative differences even if the quantitative differences have become irrelevant.
That is exactly why it is important to be careful with "infinite" properties and keep them separate from algebra and actual measurements.
Yeah, really bad stuff can happen if you're careless with infinity. It can permanently fry your computer. Worse than a kid with matches and gasoline. Mathematicians have really, really high insurance rates because of the danger. Quite.Y ou should not use that as an excuse to pretend that "cardinality" means either "quantity" or "measurable."
But it does. Did you read the article about Aleph numbers? Did you read what I said? You deceive yourself if you believe you can measure infinity. It refuses to be measured at every turn whether large or small. One way to consider the difference between the infinite series and the actual stable number is one divided by infinity (which many would like to be another way to represent zero), but that requires using infinity algebraically, which is not allowed.
... clearly defined finite value ... The better English in this scenario is "approaches the limit" as already explained. "Clearly defined finite value" is only true by arbitrating the ongoing as a representation of the not ongoing.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 30, 2017 23:44:25 GMT
Almost anything is going to matter to someone or other. You may expound. It is a reason according to whom?
I brought it up because Erjen suggested in this thread that 2D space has fewer points than 3D space (in fact they are the same).
If by the "same" you mean that infinity "equals" infinity, then perhaps, but there are obvious qualitative differences even if the quantitative differences have become irrelevant.
That is exactly why it is important to be careful with "infinite" properties and keep them separate from algebra and actual measurements.
Yeah, really bad stuff can happen if you're careless with infinity. It can permanently fry your computer. Worse than a kid with matches and gasoline. Mathematicians have really, really high insurance rates because of the danger. Quite.Y ou should not use that as an excuse to pretend that "cardinality" means either "quantity" or "measurable."
But it does. Did you read the article about Aleph numbers? Did you read what I said? You deceive yourself if you believe you can measure infinity. It refuses to be measured at every turn whether large or small. One way to consider the difference between the infinite series and the actual stable number is one divided by infinity (which many would like to be another way to represent zero), but that requires using infinity algebraically, which is not allowed.
... clearly defined finite value ... The better English in this scenario is "approaches the limit" as already explained. "Clearly defined finite value" is only true by arbitrating the ongoing as a representation of the not ongoing. Read the article. Here, I'll even put in some excerpts with highlights. In mathematics, and in particular set theory, the aleph numbers are a sequence of numbers used to represent the cardinality (or size) of infinite sets that can be well-ordered.
The concept and notation are due to Georg Cantor,[3] who defined the notion of cardinality and realized that infinite sets can have different cardinalities.
The aleph numbers differ from the infinity (∞) commonly found in algebra and calculus. Alephs measure the sizes of sets; infinity, on the other hand, is commonly defined as an extreme limit of the real number line (applied to a function or sequence that "diverges to infinity" or "increases without bound"), or an extreme point of the extended real number line.
A set has cardinality ℵ 0 \aleph _{0} if and only if it is countably infinite, that is, there is a bijection (one-to-one correspondence) between it and the natural numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 30, 2017 23:55:14 GMT
In mathematics, and in particular set theory, the aleph numbers are a sequence of numbers used to represent the cardinality (or size) of infinite sets that can be well-ordered.
The concept and notation are due to Georg Cantor,[3] who defined the notion of cardinality and realized that infinite sets can have different cardinalities.
The aleph numbers differ from the infinity (∞) commonly found in algebra and calculus. Alephs measure the sizes of sets; infinity, on the other hand, is commonly defined as an extreme limit of the real number line (applied to a function or sequence that "diverges to infinity" or "increases without bound"), or an extreme point of the extended real number line.
A set has cardinality ℵ 0 \aleph _{0} if and only if it is countably infinite, that is, there is a bijection (one-to-one correspondence) between it and the natural numbers. I'm not recognizing any value to those terms. It does appear those people are trying to make infinity some "quantity" that can be algebraically manipulated. Of course we both know infinity cannot be algebraically manipulated. So the effort is useless. I wouldn't allow those books in my child's school. Maybe it's just as well I don't have children then.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jul 1, 2017 0:10:28 GMT
In mathematics, and in particular set theory, the aleph numbers are a sequence of numbers used to represent the cardinality (or size) of infinite sets that can be well-ordered.
The concept and notation are due to Georg Cantor,[3] who defined the notion of cardinality and realized that infinite sets can have different cardinalities.
The aleph numbers differ from the infinity (∞) commonly found in algebra and calculus. Alephs measure the sizes of sets; infinity, on the other hand, is commonly defined as an extreme limit of the real number line (applied to a function or sequence that "diverges to infinity" or "increases without bound"), or an extreme point of the extended real number line.
A set has cardinality ℵ 0 \aleph _{0} if and only if it is countably infinite, that is, there is a bijection (one-to-one correspondence) between it and the natural numbers. I'm not recognizing any value to those terms. It does appear those people are trying to make infinity some "quantity" that can be algebraically manipulated. Of course we both know infinity cannot be algebraically manipulated. So the effort is useless. I wouldn't allow those books in my child's school. Maybe it's just as well I don't have children then. At least you're not declaring jihad against gangster mathematics!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2017 0:29:00 GMT
I'm not recognizing any value to those terms. It does appear those people are trying to make infinity some "quantity" that can be algebraically manipulated. Of course we both know infinity cannot be algebraically manipulated. So the effort is useless. I wouldn't allow those books in my child's school. Maybe it's just as well I don't have children then. At least you're not declaring jihad against gangster mathematics! Don't get too comfortable. I joke. I think I know the source of the confusion. The concept of "infinitely small" is difficult and people "naturally" want that to be zero. Then there is an assumption that if something is "approached" (as in the calculus) for an "infinite" amount of time then arrival is certain. It is not though. If every day I decrease my distance from an object by one half of the remaining distance I will never, ever, ever "arrive." At least not in the theoretical mathematical sense where ever smaller distances are possible. In the real world there might be some interchange of electrons at some point, but in the sense of "infinitely" small distances between "solid" objects there will be no arrival.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2017 8:44:38 GMT
You don't forgive anything. You are a sociopath with no morals. There is no deadline, and you're not making the point that you think you are. If you don't want to believe in God, you don't have to, but it's strange how you acknowledge the existence of dimensions undiscerned by human senses yet do not allow the possibility that consciousness can exist in those other dimensions. Don't you think that's strange? I think it's strange. Pot kettle e jack. Most of us on this board, apart from your mentally ill religious zealot cronies, know you are a sociopath? "Most of us on this board" amounts to a small number of progressive misfits and their sock accounts.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 1, 2017 8:52:31 GMT
Pot kettle e jack. Most of us on this board, apart from your mentally ill religious zealot cronies, know you are a sociopath? All 36 of you from around the globe?
|
|