Intelligent Reasoning


Thursday, May 30, 2013

And More stupidity from keiths

keiths sez:

If {1,2,3,…} were twice as big as {2,4,6,…}, then the second set would run out of elements before the first one was exhausted. 
How does that even follow? Are you really that retarded? Really? And you think that you can school me? LoL!

And keiths- I was NOT responding to your sticky note post when I posted :

Well now there is a double of the labeled elements. And with set theory that means the original are now removed. All of the odd numbers are gone keiths. They are not there. They have been relabeled as even numbers but the even numbers were already there and labeled.

My point pertains to the sets {1,2,3,4,...} and {2,4,6,8,...}. Obvioulsy in the second set all of the odd numbers have been removed, asshole.

keiths sez:

When you say that on the journey, one choo-choo train will “always have twice as many numbers” as the other choo-choo train, you are really saying that at every finite point in time, Choo-choo Train #1 will have (approximately) twice as many numbers as Choo-choo Train #2.

Always and forever- for infinity even- meaning at every finite point along the journey. Very good keiths. And that means the cardinality of the first set will always be greater than the second.

And to prove keiths is an imbecile, he asked:

Hey Joe, what happens when you add 1 to the LKN?

The exact thing that I have been saying, asshole. I never said the LKN was a constant.

And as further proof that he is an asshole, keiths sez:

Thank you, Joe.

keiths is thanking me for his inability to follow along? My point was that the LKN continues to grow keiths. And yet any set with the LKN as the last element would still be finite and treated as such within Set Theory.

And finally:

 Finite sets and infinite sets behave differently.

That is the bald assertion, keiths. Good luck proving it. Why do people think that infinity is some sort of magical set equalizer?

As the LKN plows forward FOREVER, the set of non-negative integers will always be twice that of the set of positive even integers. You like to change labels, swap LKN for infinity- same thing, they are both never-ending, yet allegedly one label gives a decidedly different answer to the cardinality question.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle- Still a Bluffing Loser

WRT Darwinism, Lizzie sez:

It’s remained because of its huge, and practically useful, predictive power.

Strange that she never sez how it is useful nor does she provide any of its alleged predictions.

EvoTARDS, "science" via bald assertion.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

It's the JOURNEY, Stupid!

OK olegt tells us:

Joe’s main difficulty with the concept of infinity is a failure to realize that infinity is a journey, not a destination.
Yet my Einstein train blog makes it obvioulsy clear that I know that it is all about the journey. And by the way they keep saying "well it's infinity!" says that they are just looking at infinity as a destination.

AND on the journey down the number line a train picking up all non-negative integers will always have twice as many numbers as a train picking up all positive even numbers (going down the same number line). And that is always and forever-> meaning for the entire journey.

And that is why it's a good thing that numbers don't have any mass...

Neil Rickert Sez mathematics is NOT about Reality!

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, Neil Rickert chimes in and sez:

 Mathematics is not about reality.
Remember that the next time you go to pay for something. All the math that was done to see how much you owe at the grocery store has nothing to do with reality!

When you buy a dozen eggs, don't be fooled just because there are 12 eggs in the carton. Heck it could be any number of eggs- math isn't about reality.

Shit, I believe that though. Ya see that person behind the cash register? Pretty much proof positive that math isn't about reality.

The next time the cashier says "That will be 55 dollars please". Hand her a twenty and say "Out of twenty". Then tell her it doesn't matter because math isn't about reality.

And inventory? Forgetaboutit- it deals with math and math isn't about reality.

And Neil, the way you treat science it isn't about reality either...

Is Set Theory Misleading?

I ask if set theory is misleading because it seems to contradict reality. Ya see with set theory the set of all non-negative integers has teh same cardinality, ie the same number of elements as the set of all positive even integers. Yet in reality the non-negative integers outnumber the positive even integers 2-to-1- forever (yes even out in infinity).

The reason is with set theory, once inside the {}, the numbers or whatever is put inside the {} is converted to e1,e2,e3,e4, and so on (e means elelment). Therefor all infinite and countable sets will ahve teh exact same thing {e1,e2,e3,e4,...}.

That is not so outside of the {}. And that tells me that set theory is misleading because it has you thinking that there are they same amount of numbers when in reality there is a difference.

And olegt chimes in with more bullshit:



The even integers have no need to catch up to all integers. Both sequences keep going forever. 

Yes and the number of non-negative integers will always be 2x the number of positive even integers- forever. No need to catch up and they cannot catch up.

keiths, proud to be a TARD

Now that the game has been exposed and is over, keiths still wants to prove that he is top TARD:

C’mon, Joe, don’t give up — an entire internet audience is awaiting your floundering, expletive-laced Joexplanation of how relabeling a set of objects makes half of them vanish into thin air.

They're gone dumbass. Don't blame me for your ignorance. Anyone but an evoTARD can see half of the numbers are missing.

We also want to know what to do when Joe’s Principle of Extension to Infinity collides with Joe’s Earlier Principle of Cardinality by Mapping Function.
It doesn't collide if you can actually follow directions.

Should we apply the theory of relativity? Should we “go fuck ourselves”?
Your dick is way to small for you to fuck yourself. And I doubt you could find your ass even if you used both of your hands.

keiths also sed:

OK, Joe, here’s a pattern for you:
{1} has the same cardinality as {2}
{1,2} has the same cardinality as {2,4}
{1,2,3} has the same cardinality as {2,4,6}
{1,2,3,4} has the same cardinality as {2,4,6,8}
By using Joe’s Principle of Extension to Infinity, we can conclude that
{1,2,3,4,…} has the same cardinality as {2,4,6,8,…}.
We have thus contradicted Joe’s Earlier Principle of Cardinality by Mapping Function.

LoL! You dumbass, all you have proven is that you cannot follow directions. Nice job assface.

keiths responds:

All we did was change the labels, Joe. Nobody removed any elements, but you claim that half of them are now missing. Why?


Then keiths axes:
What directions, Joe?   

If you have to ask. You do realize that my blog posts contain the directions. Or are you saying that you are arguing against me and you don't have a clue as to what I am saying (even though I clearly stated it in several posts)?

Using my principle {1,2,3,4,...} will always have twice the cardinality as {2,4,6,8,...}.

Then keiths spews some more shit about infinity and doesn't see that he is repeating what I posted. keiths, you are a dumbass. I said infinity goes on forever. I have said that many times. And on that forever journey the train will pick up more non-negative integers than it will positive even integers- FOREVER. And he doesn't seem to understand that I am no longer talking about sets...

Monday, May 27, 2013

Of Set Theory and Nested Hierarchies

Carl Linnaeus- 1707- 1778- Nested Hierarchy Classification
Georg Cantor- 1845-1918- Set Theory

Strange, Linnaeus developed his nested hierarchy classification without Cantor's set theory. Geez it looks like I am correct again- ie we don't need set theory to discuss nested hierarchies.

And not only that what is in the nested hierarchy is very important.

Great, Jon F chimes in:

Of course we don’t need set theory to discuss nested hierarchies, but it is applicable and useful.

Obvioulsy it isn't of any use nor is it applicable. Linnaeus didn't need it.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

keiths implodes from his stupidity

Too funny. Now keiths has a hissy fit and sez:

Let’s use your brilliant discovery to compare the cardinality of two sets A and B where A = {…,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,…} and B = {…,-6,-4,-2,0,2,4,6,…}.
Let’s find a mapping function that gives us a bijection (a one-to-one correspondence).
F(n) = 2n works, so according to Joe Math, set A is twice as big as set B. Great! What was that twit Cantor thinking?
But wait a minute… F(n) = 2n + 10 also works. So according to Joe Math, set A has twice the cardinality of set B plus 10.

Could you please prove that F(n)=2n+10 works. Sure it works to prove that you are a moron, but that is about it.

The point is that only the 2n matters- nothing else is required. Tacking on any even number on the end of the equation does nothing, ie it accomplishes the same thing that 2n accomplishes.

And these assholes accuse me of not understanding basic math...

Not to give up, keiths spews more TARD:

No, Joe, it doesn’t accomplish the same thing. When you change the mapping function from F(n) = 2n to F(n) = 2n + 10, every single element of the first set now maps to a different element of the second set.

LoL! It maps a one-to-one correspondence. Also once in a set everything is converted to e1, e2, e3, e4,... so you don't even need a mapping function.


In that case, F(n) = 2n + 0 accomplishes the same thing as F(n) = 2n + 10 which accomplishes the same thing as F(n) = 2n – 666,666 . If they all accomplish the same thing, then any one of them can be used to establish the relative cardinality of the two sets. Yet you say that only F(n) = 2n + 0 is permissible. On what basis?

You use the most simple equation required. Duh. Again your ignorance of math and science is not a refutation of my posts.

Patrick May- Just Another EvoTARD Coward

Poor little Patty May, making false accusations from his little safe haven.

Patty sez:

This reminds me of all the discussions with the intelligent design creationists of UD about genetic algorithms. Many of them appeared unable to distinguish between the model of evolutionary mechanisms and the implementation of the model.

Poor little Patty doesn't understand that GAs do NOT model unguided evolution. GAs do not model natural selection. GAs are an example of Intelligent Design Evolution.

This same confusion of the map and the territory is demonstrated by Joe’s response. Leaving aside the fact that he has clearly never understood even high school level math,

Hey assface, by the time I my junior in high school had ended I had my fill of high school math. They didn't have calculus. So in my senior year of high school I went to the local JUCO and took calculus at night. I was also the first underclassman at that school to hold the title of Chess Champion.

...he seems incapable of distinguishing between the value of an element in a set and the index of that element.
Again, numbers have a specific place along the number line. That position cannot be arbitrarily changed.

It seems that the ability to accept a literal reading of scripture is linked to the inability to consider abstractions.

Cool. I don't accept a literal reading of scripture. To me the Bible is just a collection of books and an interesting read.

BTW Patrick, Cantor accepted a literal reading of Scripture and he was a Creationist.

How to Determine the Cardinality of sets that go to Infinity

Thanks to the volume of evoTARDgasms wrt set theory, I have been able to determine how to figure out the relative cardinality wrt two sets that go to infinity.

The cardinality is determined by the mapping function.

For example the mapping function F(n)=2n, means that one set has 2x the cardinality of the other set.

The funny part is that has been right in front of their silly faces for over 100 years and no one could spot it. They thought they were mapping a one-to-one corresponce. However that "mapping"  just means they made each set equal to the other, equal in size as well as equal in membership and the equation is the actual difference in cardinality between the two original sets.

I see that keiths can only laugh at my proposal. Small minds tend to laugh at things that are out of their depth. Thanks keiths. Everything you post proves that I am correct and you are an imbecile.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

keiths, so stupid it hurts

keiths sez:

 The fact is that {1,2,3,…} can be converted into {2,4,6,…} without adding or removing any elements. You simply multiply each element by 2.

All of the odds numbers were elements of the first set. They have been removed from the first set in order to form the second set.

Where did all of the odd numbers go if you didn't remove them? Or are you really that fucking stupid?

But anyway-


That fact is because the first set's cardinality is 2x that of the second set. Again my methodology works.

Then he sez:

You claim that {1,2,3,…} is twice as big as {2,4,6,…}. If that were true, then it would be impossible to map {1,2,3,…} to {2,4,6,…} using F(n) = 2n, because we would exhaust the elements of {2,4,6,…} before all of the elements in {1,2,3,…} had been mapped.

No, you stupid fuck. All you are doing by using F(n)=2n is converting the first set into the second and then saying they are now equal. The reason that F(n)=2n works is because teh first set's cardinality is 2x that of the second set.

You people are so fucking stupid it hurts.

keiths the piece of sjit TARD responds:

The odd numbers are still there, Joe. It’s just that they’ve been doubled. The original set was {1,2,3,4,5,…} and the new set is {1+1, 2+2, 3+3,4+4,5+5,…}, which of course is the same as {2,4,6,8,10,…}. I didn’t remove any elements; I doubled each existing element and left it in place.

No, keiths, the odd numbers are NOT there. They have been removed by your math, dumbass.

Which elements magically disappeared, Joe?  

All of the odd numbers are gone, dumbass.

I said

No, I’m converting the first set into the second and saying that they have the same cardinality

Not another TARDgasm- AGAIN equal wrt to CONTEXT means the same cardinality. And BTW, converting one set into the other means they are equal, in size AND they also have the exact same members. As I said, you are obvioulsy an imbecile.

And if you convert the first set into the second then you have changed everything. You are no longer trying to compare two different sets. You are now comparing one set against itself.

Friday, May 24, 2013

Is Infinity Magical?

Infinity must be magical. It is the great magical equalizer.

For example take two sets- set A = {0,1,2,3,...LKN} and set B = {0,2,4,6,...LKN} where LKN = Largest Known Number. The LKN changes and A's cardinality will be 1/2 of that LKN larger than B's cardinality.

1/2 of the LKN is large number. Yet at some point out beyond the LKN there must be a zener diode avalanche region in which ships fall of the edge of the Earth, because somewhere out there, set A's cardinality and set B's cardinality become equal!

Halleluiah and pass the potatoes.

So what is out there, you may ask?- Why its ole infinity. That tricky magical fucker. When numbers get out to infinity they turn to e's (for element) and all e's are equal. So at the LKN it's impossible to form a bijection, ie no way in hell there could be a one-to-one correspondence. But just smoke a fatty, look out into infinity and chant "It's all equal now, dude".

At least now I understand all of the giggles and laughter when I presented my concept.

Is Oleg Tchernyshyov Retarded?

I have been asking who uses Cantor's idea that sets that go to infinity all have the same cardinality. The only answer I have received sed that Dembski and marks used it but that claim was never supported.

Now Oleg the asshole retard has chimed in:

MOAR set hilarity from Joe.

No one uses Cantor's concept of cardinality with respect to countably infinite sets.


In mathematics, a countable set is a set with the same cardinality* (number of elements) as some subset of the set of natural numbers. A set that is not countable is called uncountable. The term was originated by Georg Cantor.
*As defined by Cantor, of course.

More formally,


If f is also surjective and therefore bijective (since f is already defined to be injective), then S is called countably infinite.
So, the term countably infinite was introduced by Cantor himself. It denotes a set that can be mapped bijectively onto natural numbers. That's Cantor's cardinality through and through.

Not one word on who uses it. It is as if Oleg is just a drooling retard. It is obvious that he is just upset because he cannot follow two lines heading in opposite directions.

Nice job Oleg.

Density vs. Cardinality

In the thread "Of Set Theory and (False?) Claims of Logical Contradictions", socle posted:

On the other hand, there are various definitions of "density" of subsets of the natural numbers (as opposed to cardinality) that are somewhat related to your idea, so looking at finite "pieces" of sets as you were doing does have applications.
Density refers to the number of elements per specified interval. That is the same as population density. Cardinality also refers to the number of elements per a specified interval, called the set. If one set has a higher density than the other then it is a given it has a higher cardinality.

BTW I don't just look at finite "pieces". Those pieces give us a pattern we can follow out for infinity and make a determination about the cardinality wrt other sets that also go to infinity.

Thursday, May 23, 2013

A Lesson in Stupidity From KeithS

What a total dipshit this asshole is. Keiths has a "challenge for me:

1. Take any set A of integers. A has a cardinality. Leave A alone for five minutes without adding or removing any elements. Has A’s cardinality changed?


2. Take any set B of integers. B has a cardinality. Add 1 to each of the elements of B without adding or removing any elements. Has B’s cardinality changed?

3. Take any set C of integers. C has a cardinality. Multiply each element of C by 17 without adding or removing any elements. Has C’s cardinality changed?


4. Take the set {0,1,2,3,…}. It has a cardinality. Add 1 to each of its elements without adding or removing any elements. You’ll obtain {1,2,3,4,…}. Has the cardinality changed?

5. Take the set {0,1,2,3,…}. It has a cardinality. Multiply each element by 17 without adding or removing any elements. You’ll obtain {0,17,34,51,…}. Has the cardinality changed?

6. Flounder about uselessly, trying to explain why your method says that the cardinality changes in scenarios 4 and 5.

You stupid fuck I have already explained it. And there wasn't any floudering about uselessly, except by you and your ilk.

Then keiths sez:

Umm, Joe — you haven’t specified the speed of each train, or whether it’s constant, or the distance between “markers” on each number line, and whether it’s constant, so you can’t conclude that Einstein 1′s count is greater than Einstein 2′s at any particular point in time.

Dumbass, I am tryin g to make everything equal. Equal starting points wrt the 0 reference, same speeds and obvioulsy the markers would be mirror images on both number lines.

However, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the trains always travel at the same finite speed and that the distance between markers on Einstein 2′s number line is constant and twice that of Einstein 1′s. Then Einstein 1 will accumulate marks twice as fast as Einstein 2.

Here’s where you screw up: you assume that infinity is just a really big finite number, and that if Einstein 1 has accumulated more marks at every finite point in time, then he will also have more marks “at infinity”. But infinity is not a point, Joe. The Einsteins, traveling at finite speed, will never reach infinity.

Nope. I never made such an assumption and you are a fucking asshole for making unwarranted assumptions about what I think. I know they will never reach infinity. However they will be accumulating things for their sets along the way. Einstein 1 will be collecting twice as many as Einstein 2- FOREVER, dumbass.

Get it through your head, Joe: infinity is not just a big finite number. It is fundamentally, qualitatively different. It violates some of our intuitions.
YOU violate infinity with your very finite mind.
You are clinging to an intuition that has been shown to be wrong. It’s time to take the next step toward intellectual maturity and let go. 

Fuck you. No one has shown me to be wrong. Heck you are so fucking stupid taht you can't even grasp my simple concept.

KeithS, dipshit of the year, and it's only May...

How to compare infinite sets of natural numbers, so that proper subsets are also strictly smaller than their supersets HT Winston Ewert

I knew I could not have been the only one who questioned Cantor's reasoning:


Are there really as many rational numbers as natural numbers? You might answer “Yes” but a better answer would be “It depends on the underlying order relation you use for comparing infinite sets”. In my opinion there really is no reason why we should consider Cantors characterization of cardinality as the only possible one and there is also a total order relation for countable sets where proper subsets are also strictly smaller than their supersets. In this article I want to present you one of them.

HT Winston Ewert

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Meanwhile, Back on Einstein's Train...

Albert Einstein is on a train ride to infinity- two trains at the same time, even! Einstein 1 is on the train that is going down the number line of non-negative integers, ie {0,1,2,3,...}. Einstein 2 is on the train going down the number line of all positive even integers, ie {2,4,6,8,...}. Both start before 0. Every time they pass a marker, ie a member of the set, they make a mark, and put it in a set. They soon notice that Einstein 1 has made just over twice the number of marks that Einstein 2 has made. They also see the pattern and recogonize that Einstein 1 will continue to out mark Einstein2 at every point in time beyond the start. And that at no time does Einstein 2 ever have the same amount of marks or more marks than Einstein 1. Einstein 1's set will always be greater than Einstein 2's set. Always.

Georg Cantor never heard of Einstein. Never heard of relativity and didn't understand that when you observe something is important. His vision was so 19th century.

Just sayin'...

Of Set Theory and (False?) Claims of Logical Contradictions

OK, starting with Neil Rickert and not ending with him, people have made bald claims that my methodology of set comparison wrt infinite sets and their cardinality, causes logical contradictions.

Unfortunately all alleged logical contradictions have been my opponents' inability to properly use my methodology.

So it is strange that I get these claims of logical contradictions and yet no one can say what those are.

And not only that no oen can say what the practical application is for saying that the set of all non-negative integers and all positive integers have the same cardinality. It doesn't appear to have any use at all. Therefor it seems to me that saying the first set has a greater cardinality than the second set is not wrong becasue it has no effect whasoever.

So can anyone tell me what the alleged logical contradictions are or are all my opponents just full of shit?

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

The Number Line Hypothesis with Respect to Set Theory


The Number Line Hypothesis with Respect to Set Theory


With respect to infinite sets (with a fixed starting point), it has been said that the set of all non-negative integers (set A) is the same size, ie has the same cardinality, as the set of all positive integers (set B).

I have said that set A (the set of all non-negative integers) has a greater cardinality than set B (the set of all positive integers). My argument is that set A consists of and contains all the members of set B AND it has at least one element that set B does not.

That is the set comparison method. Members that are the same cancel each other and the remains are inspected to see if there is any difference that can be discerned with them.

Numbers are not arbitrarily assigned positions along the number line. With set sizes, ie cardinality, the question should be “How many points along the number line does this set occupy?”. If the answer is finite then you just count. If it is infinite, then you take a look at the finite because what happens in the finite can be extended into the infinite (that’s what the ellipsis mean, ie keep going, following the pattern put in place by the preceding members).

With that in mind, that numbers are points along the number line and the finite sets the course for the infinite, with infinite sets you have to consider each set’s starting point along the line and the interval of its count. Then you check a chunk (line segment) of each set to see how many points each set occupies (for the same chunk). The chunk should be big enough to make sure you have truly captured the pattern of each set being compared.

The set with the most points along the number line segment has the greater cardinality.


For set A = {0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5,…} and set B = {1,2,3,4,…}, set A’s cardinality is greater than or equal to set B. It all depends on when you look.
And it is strange that Patrick would tell me to read a math site and then prove that he doesn't even understand it.

Applying my Methodology to Oleg's Ass Sets

Oleg presented two sets {0,1.01,2,3,…} and {1,2,3,…}.

Applying my methodology set 1 has the gretaer cardinality. Every member of the 2nd set is also a member of the first, save 1. Set 1 has two members not in set 2. 2>1

Now look at {0,1,2,3,…} and {0,1.01,2,3,…}, they would have the same cardinality using my methodology. We can cancel out every member in each set except 1. 1=1

oleg sez:
We have thus demonstrated that {0,1,2,3,…} has the same size as {0,1.01,2,3,…},

which in turn has the same size as {1,2,3,…}.   


Not satisfied oleg axes:
How about comparing {x,1+x,2,3,4,…} and {1,2,3,4…}, Joe?

For x = 0.1 we have set A={0.1, 1.1,2,3,4,...} and set B={1,2,3,4,...}

set A has a greater cardinality than set B- again 2 - 1 = 1. IOW set A has every member of set B covered, but the number 1. And set A has 2 numbers that set B does not.

keiths still proudly full of shit

keiths, my methodolgy is only fucked up when it is in the hands of a retard like you.  And I covered your example asshole. And no, you cannot demonstrate that it gives the wrong answerr and you sure as hell cannot demonstrate any logical inconsistencies.

And I never said that my method applies to everything. It only applies in the cases I mentioned you stupid fuck.

AGAIN for the lowlife assholes:

If one set contains all of the members of another AND contains members the other does not, then my method applies. Otherwise stay with Cantor, duh.

keiths spews:

No, your method works only if a) one set is a subset of the other,
A proper subset.

and either b) at least one of the sets is finite,

False. My method works on two infinite sets.

or c) the user doesn’t mind getting the wrong answer again and again.


Then oleg the asshole chimes in:

Joe’s method obviously fails for non-integer x. Take x=0.01. He can’t compare {0,1,2,3,…} and {0.01,1.01,2.01,3.01,…} (or {−0.01,0.99,1.99,2.99,…}). The two sets have no common members.

Then you don't use my method in that case you stupid fuck. I never said, thought nor implied my method could be applied to every infinite set.

I take it none of my opponents has ever worked on anything which required muliple tools...

Newsflash- Pythagorean Theorem does NOT apply to circles!

Great oleg the asshole now sez:

Joe concedes that his method of comparing sets does not apply to the two sets mentioned above.

Concedes? It was never meant to. Only an ignorant fool would have even tried and here you and keiths are.

Then he asks:

 Since you have multiple tools at your disposal, why don’t you describe the tool with which you would compare the sizes of the sets {0,1,2,3,…} and {0+x,1+x,2+x,3+x,…}?  

Why don't you fuck yourself and tell me what logical inconsistencies and what other damage my methodology causes. Stop trying to change the subject...

BTW oleg, good luck finding an infinite number of color names for the infinite numbers- fucking dumbass.

Now oleg is running all over with the goalposts:

3. Greg also tells us that sets {0,1.01,2,3,…} and {1,2,3,…} have the same cardinality.

Wait, that first set doesn't even make any sense. What is the number after 3? the elipsis say to continue on as before, yet a pattern has not been established.

Geez oleg are you are total asshole or what?

So oleg sez:

The first is a set of all non-negative integers {0,1,2,3,…}, in which 1 is replaced with 1.01. The second is a set of all positive integers {1,2,3,4,…}.

Please show me where that format has ever been used- show that Cantor addressed it. You don't just get to pull shit from your ass and call it valid.

Well oleg could NOT do as requested, no surprise there...

Monday, May 20, 2013

keiths is full of shit and proud of it

keiths, please go fuck yourself. Your examples prove that you are nothing but a fuckhead.

For example you spew:
But that’s silly, because you could just as easily choose a different mapping, such as:
0 doesn’t map to anything
1 doesn’t map to anything
2 doesn’t map to anything
3 <--> 1
4 <-->; 2
5 <--> 3
… and so on.
No, you stupid fuck. That fucks up my stated methodology. My methodolgy states that you actually compare the two sets and the members that are the same are aligned. So 1 would always align with 1.

With my methodology {0,1,2,3,...} will always have a greater cardinality than {1,2,3,4,...}, because it has all of the members of that set covered AND it has a member of its set that the other does not.

So yes, if you want to be a total fucking asshole then my methodology doesn't work. However that is your problem and not indicative of the methodology.

For example this:

A= {0,1,2,3,...} and B= {0,2,4,6,...} AGAIN the first set has all of the members of the second set covered AND it has members the second set does not have. Therefor my methodology says that set A's cardinality is greater than set B's.

Even my fourth grade daughter understands it.

Then oleg the asswipe chimes in again with more nonsense:

 For a small x (say, between 0 and 1), the sets {0,1,2,3,…} and {0+x,1+x,2+x,3+x,…} have no common members. None is a proper subset of the other. So his comparison method fails.

A 0 for x and the sets are the same, oleg. x = 1 and we are right back where we started. Are you really that fucking retarded?

And again, my comparison method works for anyone familiar with sets. And if you can't tell if two infinite sets have matching members, then you cannot use my methodology. Duh.

More Stupidity with Oleg

Oleg sez:

Consider the set {0+x, 1+x, 2+x, 3+x,…}, where x is a real number. When x=0, we have {0,1,2,3,…}. When x=1, we have {1,2,3,4,…}. The great thing about parameter x is that it allows us to continuously interpolate between the two previously considered sets.
The size of a set is “obviously” an integer number and as such it cannot change continuously. Thus, as we increase x continuously from 0 to 1, the size of the set should remain unchanged. So as we arrive at x=1, the set size is still the same as it was when we departed from 0.
So not only do we have a bijective mapping between sets {0,1,2,3,…} and {1,2,3,4,…}, we have a continuous bijective mapping that provides a continuous interpolation between the two sets. Their sizes should certainly be the same.

Umm, the size of an infinite set changes continuously. However if one infinite set contains all of the members of another infinite set AND has members the other does not have...

Dear Oleg,

My methodology is simple. If one infinite set contains all the members of another infinite set, AND it also contains members the other set does not, it has a greater cardinality.

If you know anything about sets, doing that is easy.

And I see Richie is spewing spewing his ignorant "count the letters of the recipe", as if that is all I said was involved...

Thanks MathGrrl

Patrick may, aka MathGrrl, links to what is infinity? At the end we read:
If you continue to study this subject you will find discussions about infinite sets, and the idea of different sizes of infinity.
That subject has special names like Aleph-null (how many Natural Numbers), Aleph-one and so on, which are used to measure the sizes of sets

For example, there are infinitely many whole numbers {0,1,2,3,4,...},
But there are more real numbers (such as 12.308 or 1.1111115) because there are infinitely many possible variations after the decimal place as well. 

It looks like I am not so wrong after all.

And Neil Rickert says:

 People have obviously tried looking at cardinality in accordance with simple intuition. That works with finite sets. But, when tried with infinite sets, it quickly leads to logical contradiction. The way we actually handle cardinality might look unintuitive to you, but it avoids those logic contradictions.

Neil, when you can actually count the number of elements in each set then that ain't being intuitive. That is being able to do basic math. What logical contradictions are you talking about? Please list them. Thanks.

Note to keiths on Arbitrary Mapping

Keiths is quite the ignorant ass. So I will explain it for him-

Ya see keiths when we say that one set is a subset of another we do NOT align them with just any member of the other set. For example take two sets:

A={0,1,2,3,...100} and B={1,2,3,4,...100}. Set B is a proper subset of A and it aligns starting with the 1 from set B aligning with the 1 from set A. And from there every number in set B aligns with the SAME number in set A and you can then see that niothing from set B aligns with the 0 from set A.

However when you take away the 100 from both sets for some reason, ie arbitrary, the alignments starts with each sets first element and you get a one-to-one corresponce of elements but not a one-to-one relation wrt numbers. IOW it's as if you are moving the starting point of one back to meet the starting point of the other just so you can get them to measure up to each other.

That is as if one person has one leg shorter than the others and you say "No they are the same size because I can arbitrarily add something to the bottom of this foot to make the legs the same length". No, all you are doing is making the distance to the ground the same. The legs are still different lengths.

BTW asshole- I went back to clarify my post because you assholes totally misrepresented it. We were talking about equal SIZES. My fault for assuming that loser assholes like you and Neil could actually follow along.

And the assface continues:
Joe’s subset method can’t even show that {knife, fork} and {cup, saucer} have the same cardinality.
The subset method isn't applicable to those and neither are infinite sets you fucking asshole.

His “count the leftovers” method gives nonsensical answers when dealing with infinite sets, as the OP explains.

Your OP doesn't explain anything, as usual. And my method reveals the truth, not nonsensical answers. Your posts are nonsensical answers, keiths.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

A Tale of Two Sets

Take two sets of whole numbers- A and B. Set A contains every single number set B has plus one number B does not have.

Now take an arbitrary measuring system and voila, both sets are the same size!

KeithS Chimes in

Earth to keiths, I understand what you are saying. It is the same thing oleg said. And as I said that mapping is arbitrary. Why choose an arbitrary mapping when we can do a direct number by number comparison?

One set has every number of the other set PLUS one number the other set does not contain. To say they have the same cardinality or are the size, is just subjective. And just because you chumps buy it without question, don't get upset with me because I can see the obvious and you cannot.

But the big question is how is any of this relevant to the real world? No one can measure infinity so any talk of size wrt infinity is futile. And Cantor himself said there are different degrees of infinity.

BTW Neil's example is bogus because he was dealing with two very different sets of things.

Now if someone had asked if {knife, fork} was the same size as {cup, saucer}, I would have said they have the same cardinality and therefor of equal size.

And yes, that mapping works fine on sets of FINITE size. So please stop mixing finite sets with infinite sets. The two are not the same. There isn't an infinite number of forks and knives. There isn't an infinite number of letters.

If there were two runners, one starting at mile 0 and the other starting at mile 1. The runner at mile 1 starts running when the runner from mile 0 reaches him/ her. They then run in lockstep for infinity. At any and every point in time the runner from mile 0 will have run one more mile than the other runner. No one would arbitrarily move the starting mile 0 line after the runner made it to the mile 1 marker.

But by your logic, both runners have ran the same distance all along.

So to sum it all up, math that doesn't have any practical applications and uses arbitrary rules, seems very petty and meaningless. As this is a perfect example of such math.

Please do a post when you find some usefullness for this concept OR of you ever find some evidence that supports your raw speewage wrt unguided evolution.

Earth to keiths- if you think that unguided evolution has any support then it is YOU who is hopelessly confused.

Earth to oleg the asshole- Math isn't arbitrary and subjective, yet this is. So if this is math, it is fringe math that is useless. So who cares but the losers who cannot support their position so they are forced to cause distractions?

Oleg, dipshit, not all of set theory is fringe math because not all of set theory uses arbitrary rules. Just this part-> dealing with infinite sets of obvious different sizes and saying they are the same is fringe. Grow up you fucking tard.

And petrushka, seeing that not every set is a nested hierarchy, and seeing that nested hierarchies do NOT deal with infinite sets, set theory has little to do with nested hierarchy.  See Set theory is irrelevant when discussing nested hierarchies

Subsets and Supersets, Revisted


  • or equivalently
    • B is a proper superset of A;

With that in mind-

Take two sets:

{0,1,2,3,...}   and    {1,2,3,4,...}

It has been stated and agreed that the first set is a proper superset of the second and the second set is a proper subset of the first.

Given the above definition, what does that tell you about the two sets?

It tells you that the first set has at least one element that the second set does not, ie they are not equal- MEANING EQUAL IN SIZE MORONS.

So if two sets are not equal (MEQANING EQUAL IN SIZE), then they cannot have the same cardinality. And if we look at Cardinality, we read that:

Some infinite cardinalities are greater than others.

Greater than is NOT equal to. So infinite sets are not necessarily equal, ie do not necessarily have the same cardinality.

Go figure...

Great Neil Rickert chimes in with his usual bald assertion and false accusation and no proof.

Can we see the proof that {0,1,2,3,...} is the same size as {1,2,3,4,...}. And please have that proof explain the obvious contradiction noted above.

And oleg chimes in with the lie that I have seen the "proof". Add mathematical proof to the long list of things oleg doesn't understand.

Oleg, your "proof" is refuted by the explanation in the above post.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Of Sets and EvoTARDS

OK the evoTARD is in full strngth now. One evoTARD axed me if the following two sets were the same size:


I said they are not. Ya see the ... after the last number means it just continues forever, ie to infinity. They both go to infinity but the first one starts one number before the second. That means that the first one will always have one element more than the second which means they are NOT the same size, by set standards.

Friday, May 17, 2013

CSI is NOT a Measure of Meaning/ Function




Thursday, May 16, 2013

Why Living Organisms are Chock-full and Replete with CSI

Living organisms are chock-full and replete with CSI because they are chock-full and replete with biological specifications. That is they consist of and contain functional systems and subsystems that depend of sequence specificity.

And CSI is Shannon information with function/ meaning. Heck the minimal genome of the minimal bacteria requires some 250 specific proteins.

This pisses evoTARDS off so they have to attack the concept because they know they cannot demonstrate unguided processes producing such a thing.

Oh goody, dumbass Kevin McCarthy tries to respond to me:
"biological specifications"... OK Joey, name one. Name one biological specification and how you determine if it is present or not.

Reproduction*. And we determine it is present by observing it happening, duh.

On sequence specificity:

Really? These systems DEPEND on sequence specificity? Let's get some numbers Joey... how specific do the sequences have to be Joe?  

Specific enough whereas not just any will do. And specific enough to produce all of the proteins required to sustain a living organism. Again, not just any set of proteins will do.

Do you ever read the peer-reviewed literature Kevin? You can read just how specific the sequence has to be in most cases.

In DNA, there are 64 combinations of codons, but they only generate 20 amino acids (and three STOP codes). 

LoL! The codons don't generate anything. They code for the amino acids. A code your position cannot explain. But there you have it. the sequence has to be specific enough to code for the proper amino acids for the protein to be able to fold into its functional shape.

And the protein is much more than just the active site. Some form channels to funnel molecules to the active site.

Since CSI is a numerical value (in bits) and Shannon information is a numerical value (in bits), then function/meaning must be a numerical value (in bits).

If it must be then please show your work demonstrating that claim. I say function and meaning are observations- you know why we do science in the first place.

No one cares what you think biology does, doesn't, can do, or can't do.

Well Kevin, no one gives a fuck about anything you say. You couldn't supprt evolutionism if you life depended on it. All you do is deny reality and attack strawman after strawman.

Remember Joey, this has nothing to do with biology, evolution, materialists, Darwinism, guided or unguided processes. This is very simply, can you do what you say?

That's false. It has everything to do with unguided evolution because if YOU could actually support the claims of your position, which apparently is different than mainstream, then I wouldn't have anything to say about CSI or Intelligent Design. And scientists have already done what I said.
Living organisms are mysterious not for their complexity per se, but for their tightly specified complexity- Paul Davies "The Fifth Miracle"


*Complicated things have some quality, specifiable in advance, that is highly unlikely to have been acquired by random chance alone. In the case of living organisms, the quality that is specified in advance is...the ability to propagate genes in reproduction- Richard Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker"

Oleg the Asshole, Still Choking on Sets

Dumbass oleg tries to correct me:
Poor Joe. He is digging the hole deeper.

In order to be a proper superset it must be in relation to at least one other set. And those other sets must have fewer elements than the superset, with the superset consisting of and containing of all of the elements in those other sets. That is important information, especially when constructing a nested hierarchy of sets.

This passage contains a category error. Joe mixes apples and oranges.

Nope. There isn't any error and I don't mix anything. You are just a moron.

A set is defined as a standalone thing, without relation to other objects.
I never said otherwise. So what's your point besides that you are an asshole?

For example, you can say that {1,2,3} is a set. But if you say that {1,2,3} is a superset, mathematicians will laugh at you because a superset is a comparative notion. {1,2,3} is a superset of {1,2}. It is not a superset of {1,2,3,4}. So is {1,2,3} a superset? The question makes no sense until you specify a set to compare. Something can't be just a superset, it has to be a superset of something.
That is what I have been telling you- that supersets need to be compared to something. And YOU threw a hissy-fit. Now you are agreeing with me.

So Joe puts on reading glasses and boldly extends the standard definition of a superset. A superset (according to Joe) is any set that is a proper superset of at least one other set (in the regular sense).
No, I didn't extend anything. Your false accusation is duly noted.

This extension is nonsense. {1,2,3} is a regular superset of {1,2}, so it is a superset a la Joe. {1} is a superset of {}, so it is a superset a la Joe. Come to think of it, any set is a superset a la Joe because it is a proper superset of the empty set. (The empty set is the only exception.) If all non-empty sets are supersets, why do we need a new word for them? We don't.
Yes by all definitions {1,2,3} is a superset of {1,2}. And asshole YOU were the one who said that any set is a superset and a subset of itself. Are you really that fucking retarded?

And another asshole chimes in:

Joe--can a subset a, of a proper superset b, which has members a doesn't have, be the same size as b?

Please please please answer this JoeG.
What does it mean to be the same size? They cannot/ do not contain the same number of elements. In your scenario (super)set b contains more elements than its subset a.

OK so I answered the question correctly and so now the evoTADGASMs flow because I asked for clarity. OlegT sed I should just look up the definition yet when I did so for a superset he threw a hissy-fit.

So another asshole chimes in:

Are {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...} the same size, or not?


Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Another Dumbass Bogus CSI "Challenge"

Lizzie, please, just give up. I know that you think that you are onto something but you are not. You also seem to think that Dembski's paper "Specification" lives in total isolation. It does not.

Lizzie has claimed to have read "No Free Lunch" yet she chooses to ignore it. Must have been way over her head.

Lizzie's dumbass bogus CSI "challenge"

A picture? Really? If you give a staged picture of a person with his eyes closed to a forensic scientist do you think he/ she could tell if the person is dead or alive? Could that scientist tell you how he might have died?

The point is science is not done via photos alone. And if all you have are photos then you had better have high resolution and many angles before even beginning.

We need to see the actual thing, Lizzie. Or are you asking if agency involvement was required to make the picture?

Elizabeth Liddle, Choking on Intelligence





Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Dr Nim and Dr Liddle's Confusion

Lizzie Liddle is fascinated with a mechanical game called "The Amazing Dr Nim". She thinks it is amazing because it behaves like an intelligent agent. Well yeah, it was DESIGNED to!

Clearly Dr Nim was conceived, designed and manufactured by intelligent agents who did so with purpose and intent.

Lizzie, Dr Nim is a mechanical counter and consists of more than than "just a few plastic gates mounted on channeled board".  And everything it does traces back to the intelligent agencies who conceived, designed and manufactured it.

It ain't magic Lizzie. When there are 4 marbles left just remove one from the top feeder row and Dr Nim will still drop 3. It isn't clever.

15 balls to start. Then it counts down to 1.

So do you understand that Lizzie? Dr Nim, a plastic game, behaves like an intelligent agent because intelligent agents designed it to. It's design and intent all the way down.

Dr Nim confounds Lizzie Liddle

Of Sets, Supersets, and Subsets

General and trivial information:

In mathematics set is not only a set, but it is also an improper superset AND an improper subset of itself. That's one better than a Cert and a reeses cup.

And that belongs in the set of trivial things.

What is NOT trivial is the proper side of the coin, the part that matters. In order to be a proper superset it must be in relation to at least one other set. And those other sets must have fewer elements than the superset, with the superset consisting of and containing of all of the elements in those other sets. That is important information, especially when constructing a nested hierarchy of sets.

What's the point? Well Oleg Tsuchajerkoff axed me if a set could be a superset of itself. I said no, provided the reasoning and he started flopping about like a fish out of water.

And the sad part is he was prattling on about proper terminology- or maybe that was some other sock- yet he did not.

The really sad part is they keep telling me to show up at the forum and somehow they will magically be able to support evolutionism. Yet all I get when I go there are bullshit distractions, more false accusations and quivering cowardice- safety in numbers sort of thing.

With spokesTARDS like that, no wonder no one takes evolutionism seriously- no one beyond the TARDS that is.

Alan, call me Anal, Fox, Clueles 'til the end

Alan Fox is allegedly a biochemist. Unfiortunately he proves time and again that he doesn't understand science. Alan sez:

Saying unintelligent forces are “scientifically implausible” is exactly what I mean by an argument from incredulity.
No Alan, that is what science has demonstrated. Just take a look at Lenski's long running experiment.

Alan goes on to say:

And “require ID” is a meaningless phrase.
Only to you and other totally ignorant evoTARDs, Alan. To real researchers that is a game changing determination. Even Dawkins recognizes that fact.

Then Alan proves that he is a clueless dolt:

 Unless you want to tell me what ID does, – where, when, how. 

Intelligent Design detects and studies design in nature. It does so wherever such patterns are found and it does so using tried and true scientific techniques.

Unless Alan is saying that we need to know how, where, when designs came to be. But only a moron would think we need to know those answers BEFORE determining design is present and then studying it.

Earth to Alan Fox, if you don't like the design inference all you have to do is step up and actually present some evidence, along with a testable hypothesis, for unguided evolution. keiths tried and failed miserably. So what do you have besides your obvious ignorance?

Saturday, May 11, 2013

New Bumper Sticker

Soon to be found on bumpers everywhere:

Virginia is for Lovers
And DEAD terrorists

Friday, May 10, 2013

Things that EvoTARDs Don't Understand- Unguided Evolution is NOT Compatible with Common Descent

For starters unguided evolution can't explain how prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. It cannot explain how single-celled eukaryotes evolved into metazoans and it definitely cannot explain meosis, without which metazoans cannot reproduce. No reproduction, no common descent.

What unguided evolution is compatible with is genetic entropy, disease and deformaties.

keiths is just a Pathological Liar (or totally ignorant)

- keiths is at it still. He baldly declares:
The nested hierarchy favors unguided evolution over ID by a factor of trillions.
Hey asshole, the observed nested hierarchy, Linnean taxonomy, has NOTHING to do with evolution, guided or not. Also an Army can be placed into a nested hierarchy, and an army also has nothing to do with evolution.

And keiths spews another bald assertion:

Other evidence, such as biogeography, for example, also fits with unguided evolution far, far better than it does with ID. 
Cuz he sez so!

Phylogenetics say NOTHING about a mechanism. Morphology  doesn't say anything about a mechanism.

And through all of his bluster keiths never sez how it was determined that evolution is unguided, never provides any testable hypotheses for unguided evolution and never provides any predictions. All he provides is one bald assertion after another.

So is keiths just a pathological liar or is he totally ignorant?

Thursday, May 09, 2013

Elizabeth Liddle, Ignorant and Proud of it

Elizabeth Liddle thinks she is some sort of scientific authority. I say that because she always just baldly asserts shit and thinks that alone is evidence. In response to what Eric Anderson posted over on UD, Lizzie posted:
This is really quite simple:
1. Is x designed?
2. Who designed x?
I trust you can see that these are separate questions and that it is possible to answer the first without ever answering, or even asking for that matter, the second.
(Lizzie) No, they are not separate questions, Eric. It is the fundamental error of ID to think that they are. This is why E-prime is so useful in rooting out such errors. Translating into E-prime:
1. Did somebody or something design x?
2. Who designed x?
My first is logically identical to Eric’s first, but written in E-Prime we can see that the questions are not separate at all, but intimately related. To answer the first we need to consider the second, and to answer the second, we need to consider the first.

That is total bullshit, Lizzie. To answer the first all we need is knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And to even consider the second we must answer the first. No one looks for a criminal unless there is a sign of a crime. Yes, we do consider the second but only AFTER answering the first. Thankfully you do not conduct investigations that depend on design inferneces.
This is why science is iterative.
The explanatory filter is iterative, Lizzie. And it is a process mandated by scientific investigation-> see Newton's Four Rules
This is why ID is not science.
And yet we arrive at any given design inference via an iterative process that requires knowledge gained via observations, experiments and experiences. OTOH all your position has are bald assertions. Not one experiment demonstrates that unguided evolution can construct multi-protein configurations. Lenski's 50,000+ generations have failed to produce anything beyond the use of one existing protein in an O2 rich envirnment. Why don’t YOU lead by example Lizzie? Why don’t you tell us the iterative process(es) used to determine that the diversity of living organisms evolved via unguided, purposeless, blind, mindless processes. And then tell us why these processes do not live up to expectations when they are directly observed. For example after more than 50,000 generations Lenski’s bacteria still haven’t developed any new proteins, let alone new protein-to-protein binding sites. Present to us these alleged testable hypotheses and predictions borne from darwinian processes. You keep saying that we are doing it wrong yet you cannot show us how you guys do it correctly. Why is that?

Things That EvoTARDs Do NOT Understand- Intelligent Design IS Compatible with Common Descent

This is in response to an evoTARD post titled Things That IDers Don’t Understand, Part 1 — Intelligent Design is not compatible with the evidence for common descent. (this is wrt universal common descent)

keiths sez:
The first misconception I’ll tackle is a big one: it’s the idea that the evidence for common descent is not a serious threat to ID. As it turns out, ID is not just threatened by the evidence for common descent — it’s literally trillions of times worse than unguided evolution at explaining the evidence. No exaggeration. If you’re skeptical, read on and I’ll explain.
Unfortunately for keiths, unguided evolution doesn't explain anything- it can't even muster a testable hypothesis. Not only that universal common descent cannot be tested as we do NOT know what makes an organism what it is so there is no way to tell if changes to a genome can account for UCD.

keiths then links to Dr Theobald's 29+ evidences for macrevolution. However even Theobad says the evidence does NOT depend on any mechanism and his evidences can be used to support a common design. However, keiths, being totally ignorant of designing, does not understand the concept of a common design and thinks he can use his ignorance to refute it.

keiths is also ignorant of nested hierachies:

The following asymmetry explains why: the discovery of an objective nested hierarchy implies common descent, but the converse is not true; common descent does not imply that we will be able to discover an objective nested hierarchy.

That is false. Linnean taxonomy, the observed nested hierarchy (even according to Theobald), is based on a COMMON DESIGN and has NOTHING to do with evolution, guided or not. IOW keiths is an ignorant ass and he really thinks his ignorance is some sort of "argument".

So that is it- keiths relies solely on Theobald's 29+ evidences, which do NOT stipulate a mechansim, and twists it to make it fit unguided evolution, which he does only via a bald assertion.

keiths also brings up microevolution and macroevolution:

They concede that unguided evolution can bring about microevolutionary changes, but they claim that it cannot be responsible for macroevolutionary changes. Yet they give no plausible reasons why microevolutionary changes, accumulating over a long period of time, should fail to produce macroevolutionary changes. All they can assert is that somehow there is a barrier that prevents microevolution from accumulating and turning into macroevolution.
It's like this dumbass-> there isn't any known microevolutionary event that we can take and extrapolate macroevolution. The beak of the finch, micro, cannot explain the bird, macro. Anti-biotic resistance, micro, cannot explain how bacteria evolved into something other than bacteria, macro. Heck it can't even explain new proteins, let alone new protein machinery requiring several different proteins.

The problem is that no one has to propose and defend any barrier. It is up to the evoTARDs, and anyone accepting universal common descent, to demonstrate such a thing is even possible.  And right now all you have is to throw father time around as if that is going to solve your problems.

Lenski- more than 50,000 genrations and no signs of macroevolution. HIV and malaria, millions of generations and no signs of macroevolution.

So there you have it- keiths is a liar and a buffoon.

Why would a designer start with single-celled organisms and have metazoans emerge later? Terra-forming.