sci.math
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: An uncountable countable set

Subject: Re: An uncountable countable set
From: Lester Zick
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:21:23 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.math
On 30 Oct 2006 16:34:04 -0800, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:45:57 -0500, David Marcus
>> <DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:11:48 -0500, David Marcus 
>> >> <DavidMarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >Lester Zick wrote:
>> >> >> According to MoeBlee mathematical definitions require a "domain of
>> >> >> discourse" variable such as IN(x) and OUT(x).
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you've used this joke enough already. Why don't you come up with
>> >> >a new one?
>> >>
>> >> Mainly because everyone seems to want to ignore the point Moe raised
>> >> regarding mathematical definitions. It would seem either Moe is right
>> >> or Stephen (I think) drew an improper mathematical definition or Moe
>> >> is not right.
>> >
>> >Or, you misunderstood what Moe said. I would think that would be the
>> >heavy favorite.
>>
>> Gee how hard can it be to understand "card(x)=least ordinal(x) with
>> equinumerous(x)" where x represents the domain of discourse?
>
>Very hard, since it's gibberish. And it's not my formula.
>
>Please stop misprepresenting what I posted. Your mangled versions are
>not my own.

Who gives a flying  ?

>What I posted was:
>
>card(x) = the least ordinal equinumerous with x.

Oh so nobody's allowed to define anything using the technique but poor
little Moe?

>> I mean I
>> can appreciate it might be difficult to understand the validity of
>> such particular definitions but I don't agree the form itself which
>> Stephen didn't choose to employ is especially difficult to comprehend.
>> Quite possibly you just misunderstand what Moe said and prefer not to
>> consider the possibility that one of the two is wrong.
>
>No, you're just (intentionally, it seems) mangling what I posted.
>Please stop doing that.

Yeah, yeah, I tell you what Moe: why don't you just stop talking about
it? I made reference to something you claimed which you can't justify
according to the posts you've mangled (intentionally it seems) and now
you're embarrassed about it. You're a big boy. Get over it already.

~v~~

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Privacy Policy