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.
However, there a just as many cases where this isn't.
mean in that context? Because it kind of looks to me that you think it's false in some cases.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-09 17:12
So to recap, statements that are still true
any subset of a countable set is also countable the real interval [0,1] is not a subset of the real numbers
And just a note at the end, Kodak thinks both of these are false despite mathematical evidence.
>>162
Also, he contradicted himself multiple times, why do you still take him seriously?
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-09 17:17
I don't think Kodak is bright enough to scrub my toilet.
Name:
Alpha Male!gD3Op2fhHs2012-01-09 17:18
Kodak is a jelly little manlet who doesn't know that he should shut up when he's facing his betters, he's a pathetic omega male who constantly get owned in real life by alpha males such as myself, that's why he acts out so much on the internet because it's the only time he can feel like a man.
Hey manlet, I mean, hey Kodak, how tall are you again? Oh you're still 5 feet tall? Tough luck brah, I'm sure you can get those leg extensions you want to get when you're done scrubbing enough toilets, at least that way a 3/10 woman might consider you if she's drunk.
>>162 [0,1]∩ N = {0,1}. |{0,1}| = 2, countable. |[0,1]|=c=\aleph_1, uncountable. [0,1]/ N = (0,1). |(0,1)|=c, uncountable
Of course [0,1] as real interval isn't a subset of naturals, and I don't know why would anyone even bother talking about sillyness.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-09 17:20
>>163
I never said [0,1] itself was the real interval.
Name:
Alpha Male!gD3Op2fhHs2012-01-09 17:23
>>168 |[0,1]|=c=\aleph_1
You can't assume the continuum hypothesis and still use ZFC brah.
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-09 17:25
>>168 [0,1]∩ N = {0,1}. |{0,1}| = 2, countable. |[0,1]|=c=\aleph_1, uncountable. [0,1]/ N = (0,1). |(0,1)|=c, uncountable
What's this supposed to prove?
>>170 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis CH is independent of ZFC. Like CH, GCH is also independent of ZFC, but Sierpiński proved that ZF + GCH implies the axiom of choice (AC), so choice and GCH are not independent in ZF; there are no models of ZF in which GCH holds and AC fails. Kurt Gödel showed that GCH is a consequence of ZF + V=L (the axiom that every set is constructible relative to the ordinals), and is consistent with ZFC. As GCH implies CH, Cohen's model in which CH fails is a model in which GCH fails, and thus GCH is not provable from ZFC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice#Independence Assuming ZF is consistent, Kurt Gödel showed that the negation of the axiom of choice is not a theorem of ZF by constructing an inner model (the constructible universe) which satisfies ZFC and thus showing that ZFC is consistent. Assuming ZF is consistent, Paul Cohen employed the technique of forcing, developed for this purpose, to show that the axiom of choice itself is not a theorem of ZF by constructing a much more complex model which satisfies ZF¬C (ZF with the negation of AC added as axiom) and thus showing that ZF¬C is consistent. Together these results establish that the axiom of choice is logically independent of ZF.
>>171
Nothing, just showing the obvious: that the real interval [0,1] isn't a subset of naturals, and that it contains only 2 naturals within it, 0 and 1.
Name:
Alpha Male!gD3Op2fhHs2012-01-09 17:33
>>172
Exactly brah, there is no point in assuming the continuum hypothesis if you're only using constructs from ZFC.
>>173
You mirin? Don't be mad because you're unaesthetic, I can't help my genetics.
>>179
Oh well, that's ok, everyone can make a mistake every now and then.
Name:
Alpha Male!gD3Op2fhHs2012-01-09 17:41
>>177
Usually he just cries alone in his dirty apartment, then after a while he starts cross dressing in his late sisters dirty clothes and after that he usually feels better.
He'll be back brah, and more furious than ever because some alpha stole the girl he thought was cute back in high school, omegas are funny like that.
Kodak-san! The way everyone attacked you in this thread shows how insecure you've made them! Continue your work Kodak-san! It's working!
Name:
Anonymous2012-01-10 15:43
>>148
Strange I didn't notice this thread before now, I understand why Kodak were at odds with everyone though, he mistook his ability to immediately count some user accounts with the mathematical definition of countability.
So, do you have mathematics with nicer Lisp-like syntax and without infinite faggotry? Cuz you know, we are living in 21st century, there should be more anarchy and subcultures, more opinions, and single monotheistic mathematics just sucks here. Why cant we have separate mathematics for women and for buddhists? Autocracy must be stopped!
>>76 That is incorrect you mental midget. What happens if I have a set of real numbers in the interval [0,1]. The interval, which is defined on the set of natural numbers is countable. However, the subset of this interval isn't.
ahaha kodak_faggot_jobless sucks at math
Name:
Anonymous2012-04-22 15:06
>>189 Why cant we have separate mathematics for women and for buddhists?
feminist positive-action faggot detected