Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Mathematics is shit

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 1:19

Just look at these ugly swatches of code:
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~idl99/Proceedings/ahn/img50.gif
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~idl99/Proceedings/ahn/node8.html

That is what you get, when programming immitates math. Even Java and PHP looks beautiful compared to that. Mathematics should be banned as a harmful and obfuscated teaching.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:25

>>120
Congratulations, you've proved that rational numbers are countably infinite.
Now, where's the proof for real numbers?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:26

>>118
No, but saying any subset of a countable set is also countable is sloppy. The general way to assert something like this is to say that it is both one to one and onto. That way you can be assured that any two given subsets won't map to the same set.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:27

>>121
And this is a subset because r* maps from N to R.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:28

>>123
To Q, not R.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:28

>>120
A function can not be the subset of anything, if you are talking about the set {k*} then that is also not a subset of the natural numbers as there are no functions in set of natural numbers. Do continue however, I am finding this quite humorous.

Name: >>121,124 2012-01-09 16:30

>>125
Quite humorous? I'm dying in laughter.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:31

>>125
Did you even make it beyond the 10th grade you idiot? Alao, I never said the function itself was a subset. Cripes you are on stupid SOB. I guess I should have seen it coming when you tried to assert that

"Any subset of a countable set is countable."

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:32

I can't believe what I'm reading. No wonder Kodak is worth shit nowadays. They employed programmers who don't have the level of Mathematics required in seventh grade. Let's see the "lol I did Berkly" proof.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:32

>>127
And again, this breaks down if I have two sets that map to the same set.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:33

>>122
There is no need for any extra clauses, any subset of a countable set is countable is a true proposition, there is no extra condition that makes this proposition false. It's not a sloppy statement at all, it's quite pristine in fact.

It's odd to me that you as a programmer has had so little training in mathematical thinking.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:34

>>128
Let's see the "lol I did Berkly" proof

Your spelling is as bad as your reading comprehension. It's "Berkeley". Not "Berkly" you idiot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:35

>>129
this breaks down if I have two sets that map to the same set
No it doesn't you god damned piece of shit moron, it's always true. Didn't they teach you how proofs work in special ed you fucking retard?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:36

>>130
Again, what happens if the there are two or more subsets that map to the same set? It's uncountable because you don't know how many subsets are getting mapped.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:36

Kodak, do you know what a subset even is?
Try looking at this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:37

>>132
And what happens if I have more than two sets that map to the same set? How do I determine how may sets are getting mapped?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:38

>>131
proof?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:38

>>134
You have zero clue what you're talking about. Again, what happens if I have two more more subsets that map to the same set? How do I count it? I can't because it doesn't satisfy one of the conditions for countability.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:39

>>133
Nothing happens, any subset of a countable set is countable continues to be true, the proof is quite simple and two versions of it has been posted in this thread.

You can't evade mathematical proofs, it's not a matter of who shouts loudest and who spams the most insults. If it's been proven then it's true, you can't undo that I don't understand why you're trying.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:41

>>137
{0,1,2} and {0,1} are both subsets of the natural numbers.
And guess what, {0,1} is a subset of {0,1,2} too! Scary, huh?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:41

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:41

>>133
You seem to be awfully confused by the way, you're using map and set as interchangeable objects while they are quite different.

What are you attempting to count? The elements of the subset?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:42

>>138
Nothing happens, any subset of a countable set is countable continues to be true

Yes, something happens. It becomes uncountable because I can't determine the exact number of duplicate subsets that are getting mapped.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:44

>>137
Well, you can count the sets if they are subsets of a countable set. What they map to is completely irrelevant and you're quite frankly a fucking moron if you think otherwise.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:45

>>141
Shut up and butt out you queer ass faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:46

Kodak you suck at mathematics. That is all!

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:48

>>142
It becomes uncountable because I can't determine the exact number of duplicate subsets that are getting mapped
And why do you feel you need this information to determine if any of the subsets are countable?

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-09 16:48

>>143
What they map to is completely irrelevant and you're quite frankly a fucking moron if you think otherwise.

And what happens if this involves some kind of password scheme? Or what happens if this some kind of credit card transaction? Exactly, you don't know because you don't work as a programmer.

Name: kodak_gallery_programmer !!kCq+A64Losi56ze 2012-01-09 16:50

>>146
Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's because we handle customers credit card transactions. Or maybe it's because we user accounts that span over several thousands of servers.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:52

No proof?

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:53

>>147-148
I... I... can't stop laughing.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:53

>>147
You still can't change the mathematical truth that any subset of a countable set is also countable, what I work as or you work as is completely irrelevant, mathematics don't work that way kid.

I'm going to hold this over you Kodak, I don't understand why you don't yield when faced with mathematical truth but I quite frankly don't care. It's quite embarrassing that you have so little training in mathematical and logical thought, but I guess some companies settle for lesser programmers.

You don't even know what a subset is, you're a less capable mathematician than your average challenged high school student.

I suppose you're just incapable of logical thought, I guess this is a result of your mental status as a fucking retard.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:54

>>137
Wanna state that a touch more formally? Your language is ambiguous.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:57

>>137
Technically the set of all subsets of a set A, the so called powerset: P(A), has greater cardinality than the set A, to be more precise |P(A)| = 2|A|. The following does hold true: |N| = |Z| = |Q| = \aleph_0 - or naturals, integers and rationals are countably infinite.
Through Cantor's diagonalization argument, it can be shown that reals have a greater cardinality than naturals, called the cardinality of the continuum c, and assuming the Axiom of Choice, it's \aleph_1. An interesting thing about the powersets of infinite sets is that they will always give you the next cardinal, so the powerset of naturals has the same cardinality as that of reals (assuming said axiom).

However, I don't think that's what you are talking about at all. I think most people here are merely talking about the cardinality of well-known sets such as naturals and reals, while it doesn't seem to me clear what you're talking about, although if I had to give it a try, I'll say this:
there are functions f from N to N (f:N->N). There are a countable infinity of such enumerable functions which are computable, although they are not all total functions, some are partial (to say it in a more clear language: some are undefined on some inputs, or they never halt). The actual set f:N->N of total functions is not enumerable (including non-computable): this is non-trivial, but it can be proven by diagonalization, the same technique used to prove the uncountability/unenumerability of the reals.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:57

>>152
His language is that of your typical unintelligent person, he likes to mix in words he heard in the math classes he failed so he can act intelligent in front of others. He has no clue what he's talking about, he's just another programmer with no mathematical ability or talent, just another code monkey.

He has showed to us today that he's completely devoid of anything that may be called intelligence and all that is left is the pathetic shell of a man that spends his time on the internet trying to argue against mathematical truth.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:57

>>151
You still can't change the mathematical truth that any subset of a countable set is also countable,

Yes, there are cases where this is true. However, there a just as many cases where this isn't.

You don't even know what a subset is, you're a less capable mathematician than your average challenged high school student.

You still never answered my question about the empty set you stupid shit.

I suppose you're just incapable of logical thought, I guess this is a result of your mental status as a fucking retard.

Stop projecting and go scrub another toilet.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 16:59

>>154
This is coming from someone that works as a general laborer.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 17:04

>>156
I have no idea what >>154's job is, nor do you.1 However, I do think that ad hominem's or various appeals to one's social status are rather irrelevant, it doesn't matter if someone is a bum or the president of a country: either they are speaking the truth or they are not and their current status is irrelevant - maybe a richer man has a higher chance of getting a better education, but that doesn't mean that whoever it is you're speaking is wrong merely based on their social status, instead you should judge content merely by its truth value and comprehensibility.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 17:04

>>155
Yes, there are cases where this is true. However, there a just as many cases where this isn't.
No it is always true you fucking retard, don't you know what a fucking proof is?
See >>75 and >>97 you fucking retard, those are only two of the possible proofs, here let me get you some more since you're apparently too fucking dumb to operate Google, http://lmgtfy.com/?q=The+subset+of+a+countable+set+is+countable here you can choose any one of those, the proposition is always true and never fails.
You still never answered my question about the empty set you stupid shit.
Please restate your question, it must have gotten lost in all the other retarded shit you were saying.

Name: Anonymous 2012-01-09 17:05

>>158
I never said otherwise you fucking idiot. Man you're hella dumb.

Name: Alpha Male !gD3Op2fhHs 2012-01-09 17:08

>>157
Trust me brah he's not rich or intelligent, he's a poor unintelligent general laborer and every post he has made in this thread shows it. He's hella dumb, and he's mad jelly that I'm smarter than him, more academically and athletically accomplished than him and that I'm way better looking than him. Judging from his posts he's a 4/10 at best.

Just check out /prog/-scrape to see some of the instances where I demolished his scrawny ass.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List