Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s math |
On 1/10/2025 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:There is a serious problem at Hochschule Augsburg, definitely. Even worse: when this scandal has been pointed out, repeatedly, to the school board of directors they invoked "academic freedom"!!!On 1/10/25 10:32 AM, WM wrote:WM is a teacher! Holy MOLY!On 10.01.2025 13:41, Richard Damon wrote:No, it DOES have a baring on how infinity "works", but that seems to be beyond your comprehesion due to your stupidity.On 1/9/25 11:48 AM, WM wrote:>>It is true that {1, 2, 3, ...} is a set and {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} is a greater set.No, one may be the proper subset of the other, but it turns out that due to the way that infinity works, they are both are the same size.>
This has nothing to do with "how infinity works". It simply is a result of an insufficient method to measure infinite sets.
>
Regards, WM
Removing a finite part from and infinite thing does not make that infinite thing "smaller", becausse the "finite" thing is not measurable AT ALL compared to the infinite, as it is an infintesimal part of it.
Your logic is based on the concept that infihity isn't actually infinite, just "inconceivably" huge, but that means the finite thing *IS* a measurable part of the whole, just an inconceivably small portion.
IT is YOUR method that is insufficient to handle that actual nature of infinity, because it is bigger than your system can handle.
The two sets do not have a measurable difference, because they have the same number of elements. as can be shown with the proper pairing between them. *YOU* only *THINK* they are different, because your logic can't do that pairing, becuase for your logic, it take an infinite about of work, and it can't do that.
Sorry, your logic is just blowing your brain up into smithereens by its inconsistancies, resulting in your darkness out of that super nova of error.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.