∀x in R, if x > 0 and x < 1 then x = 0.5

[Skepdick]

It's like you didn't read my previous explanations. I said you can list each box twice, one after the other. Once for numbers as seen on the list, and then for the next copy of the same box listed after that, as numbers for conversion into text that can then represent anything.

Then just print the number "1" every time. First time it represents 1. Next time it represnts pi. Then it represents 2. And then it represents 3.

Ad infinitum.

Obviously, you'll have to so dome conversion/translation on 1 to get it to become some other number but that's just details according to you.

If that is too complicated for you, and you cannot tolerate having two types of representations in one list

I can have infinitely many representations on a list - it doesn't bother me. It's just navigating ambiguty and performing any kind of operations on such symbols gets.... messy and intractable.

, then you can just have the conversion representation. All the numbers on the list will be decimal representations of text. For example, the number 55 will be on my list as: [13621.00000], box_10_zeros. So now we have ONE encoding for the whole list, happy?

Not really. Why even bother with the numerals then? Just use the English alphabet.

I think I have explained everything there is to explain. If you cannot see how this shows, that in principle, you can have an arrow, pointing from each natural number to a corresponding real number, in such a way that all Reals are in the list, then the problem is with your comprehension. I can only explain so much.

Well, you keep talking about listing some numbers more than once. Why would you do that if you had "enough natural numbers"?

Why do I need to be the one to show you it's on the list?

Well you offered to "prove" stuff you don't understand. I figured you are just exploiting Cunningham's law.

Is the "structure" a truth?

No. Mathematics isn't about truth. Truth is only relevant in a particular model/interpretation.

[Magnolia5275]

It's like you didn't read my previous explanations. I said you can list each box twice, one after the other. Once for numbers as seen on the list, and then for the next copy of the same box listed after that, as numbers for conversion into text that can then represent anything.

Then just print the number "1" every time. First time it represents 1. Next time it represnts pi. Then it represents 2. And then it represents 3.

Ad infinitum.

Obviously, you'll have to so dome conversion/translation on 1 to get it to become some other number but that's just details according to you.

If that is too complicated for you, and you cannot tolerate having two types of representations in one list

I can have infinitely many representations on a list - it doesn't bother me. It's just navigating ambiguty and performing any kind of operations on such symbols gets.... messy and intractable.

, then you can just have the conversion representation. All the numbers on the list will be decimal representations of text. For example, the number 55 will be on my list as: [13621.00000], box_10_zeros. So now we have ONE encoding for the whole list, happy?

Not really. Why even bother with the numerals then? Just use the English alphabet.

I think I have explained everything there is to explain. If you cannot see how this shows, that in principle, you can have an arrow, pointing from each natural number to a corresponding real number, in such a way that all Reals are in the list, then the problem is with your comprehension. I can only explain so much.

Well, you keep talking about listing some numbers more than once. Why would you do that if you had "enough natural numbers"?

Why do I need to be the one to show you it's on the list?

Well you offered to "prove" stuff you don't understand. I figured you are just exploiting Cunningham's law.

Is the "structure" a truth?

No. Mathematics isn't about truth. Truth is only relevant in a particular model/interpretation.

Then just print the number "1" every time. First time it represents 1. Next time it represnts pi. Then it represents 2. And then it represents 3.

Oh, really? So if "Western Arabic numerals" are just an arbitrary representation of our current time and civilization, then we can just list the naturals as 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,.... that is what you are sounding like. I don't want to say you are being stupid, but I just did, sorry.

You are getting caught up in numeral representations, you really can't seem to understand the difference between representation and the actual number that is being referenced. Your points are completely irrelevant, In principle, we can see there can be an arrow pointing from each natural to any existing Real number.

You are also painting it as though I'm arbitrarily deciding for each number on the list, what number it should represent. It's not like that, you start with a certain interpretation of the list, that is decided beforehand (just like how we decide on the western numerals beforehand), and then that tells you what each representation corresponds to. It's no different in principle to when we use the digits 1,2,3,4,5,...9 , We decide beforehand what they mean mathematically. What am I doing differently here?

Not really. Why even bother with the numerals then? Just use the English alphabet.

Yes, it can also be done with English alphabet. What is your point?

Well, you keep talking about listing some numbers more than once. Why would you do that if you had "enough natural numbers"?

Seriously?? So now the problem is that I am listing things twice?? Didn't you claim the Reals were "larger" than the naturals? If I am showing you the Reals can not only fit inside the naturals, but some of them can even appear multiple times over, what the heck is the problem? Can you admit then that the infinity of N is the same as R?

No. Mathematics isn't about truth. Truth is only relevant in a particular model/interpretation.

Well, here is the problem. How do you explain the fact that physics relies so heavily on mathematics to describe the universe? If it's just in our brains, what the heck is it doing outside there? Why do we see the Fibonacci sequence in DNA and in the spirals of galaxies? Think about it, or at least try.

What happened to our game? I challenged you to give me ONE Real you claim is not on the list, and you completely failed, the list is perfection itself. You know you cannot write any Real number as a challenge because the text itself, and all articles and books referring to whatever you bring up, will be on the LIST.

[Skepdick]

Seriously?? So now the problem is that I am listing things twice??

Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more. Because once isn't enough.

Didn't you claim the Reals were "larger" than the naturals?

I did, and you are literally demonstrating it!

By having to list the same natural number twice or more just to accommodate a few Reals.

If I am showing you the Reals can not only fit inside the naturals, but some of them can even appear multiple times over, what the heck is the problem? Can you admit then that the infinity of N is the same as R?

You have absolutely no comprehension of what it is that you are even showing.

The situation is so sad you have it backwards. You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number. And you keep demonstrating that some natural numbers can be mapped to multiple real numbers. Do you actually comprehend the difference between an injective, bijective and surjective map?

What you continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number. What you fail to demonstrate is a bijective map between R and N.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection ... surjection

[Magnolia5275]

Seriously?? So now the problem is that I am listing things twice??

Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more. Because once isn't enough.

Didn't you claim the Reals were "larger" than the naturals?

I did, and you are literally demonstrating it!

By having to list the same natural number twice or more just to accommodate a few Reals.

If I am showing you the Reals can not only fit inside the naturals, but some of them can even appear multiple times over, what the heck is the problem? Can you admit then that the infinity of N is the same as R?

You have absolutely no comprehension of what it is that you are even showing.

The situation is so sad you have it backwards. You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number. And you keep demonstrating that some natural numbers can be mapped to multiple real numbers. Do you actually comprehend the difference between an injective, bijective and surjective map?

What you continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number. What you fail to demonstrate is a bijective map between R and N.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection ... surjection

Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more. Because once isn't enough.

You have absolutely no comprehension, I'm not listing naturals "twice", what are you saying? That my list goes 1,2,3,4,4,4,4,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8? Are you trolling me? What are you talking about?

What may be listed twice is the Reals, but "may" doesn't means you "must", just once is enough, there is nothing in my method that says you have to list the Reals multiple times, you can skip the duplicated! Just don't include them when you get to them. Have the algorithm take as input all the previous boxes so it can skip listing the duplicates.

All I said about the list, is that in its simple form, it will list the Reals multiple times in the list, You don't have to do that, you can just skip the duplicates and not list them!

Regardless, this is irrelevant, you cannot claim that a surjection (which has no necessity of even being on my list, you can SKIP DUPLICATES!) Is some obstacle in disproving the claim that the R > N. If anything, it shows just how easily R fits into N, so much so, that it can fit multiple times over! It's like if you with a group of 100 people came to a hotel, and the manager said that not only does he have room for everyone, he has room for everyone multiple times over, everyone can have multiple rooms for themselves. It's the same here, the Reals can have multiple "rooms" in the naturals "hotel" tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surjection.svg

As you can see from the picture, in this case, N would be the X, and Y would be the Reals I am listing. What in the world is the problem? In the picture it shows Y as smaller than X, how can you use that to claim my list cannot include all the Reals?

The situation is so sad you have it backwards. You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number. And you keep demonstrating that some natural numbers can be mapped to multiple real numbers. Do you actually comprehend the difference between an injective, bijective and surjective map?

What you continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number. What you fail to demonstrate is a bijective map between R and N.

Let me ask you this, how is it possible for a Real to NOT be on the list? My listing method is informational, I go through every option that can exist in a certain information space, and then it moves to a higher information space, and then to an even higher one, and so on, and so on. eventually, any finite piece of data will be on the list at some point. So if it's a number you can describe using information, it means necessarily that it will be on the list, how can it not?

I have demonstrated that every Real can be on the list, but you seem to be incapable of understanding it. I have no idea why

You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number... continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number

How is that not a contradiction, So if it can list every given number in the Reals, then it lists all the Reals! You are saying it yourself!

Again, tell me how it is even possible for there to be some finite number (all numbers are) or representation/function that is not listed at some point, in a list that includes all finite information as list items inside it? Tell me!

So yes, I have shown that EVERY Real number is on my list because I HAVE shown that every possible "language description" is on my list. If every possible description is listed, it follows that every possible number is on the list as well, because a number is a description of math! This is so obvious!! How are you missing it? Please don't blame me for your inability to comprehend simplicity!

Just answer me this one simple question, let's assume there is ONE Real number that is not listed. Would you agree that this Real number has a finite representation of some kind?

[Skepdick]

Seriously?? So now the problem is that I am listing things twice??

Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more. Because once isn't enough.

Didn't you claim the Reals were "larger" than the naturals?

I did, and you are literally demonstrating it!

By having to list the same natural number twice or more just to accommodate a few Reals.

If I am showing you the Reals can not only fit inside the naturals, but some of them can even appear multiple times over, what the heck is the problem? Can you admit then that the infinity of N is the same as R?

You have absolutely no comprehension of what it is that you are even showing.

The situation is so sad you have it backwards. You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number. And you keep demonstrating that some natural numbers can be mapped to multiple real numbers. Do you actually comprehend the difference between an injective, bijective and surjective map?

What you continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number. What you fail to demonstrate is a bijective map between R and N.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection ... surjection

Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more. Because once isn't enough.

You have absolutely no comprehension, I'm not listing naturals "twice", what are you saying? That my list goes 1,2,3,4,4,4,4,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8? Are you trolling me? What are you talking about?

What may be listed twice is the Reals, but "may" doesn't means you "must", just once is enough, there is nothing in my method that says you have to list the Reals multiple times, you can skip the duplicated! Just don't include them when you get to them. Have the algorithm take as input all the previous boxes so it can skip listing the duplicates.

All I said about the list, is that in its simple form, it will list the Reals multiple times in the list, You don't have to do that, you can just skip the duplicates and not list them!

Regardless, this is irrelevant, you cannot claim that a surjection (which has no necessity of even being on my list, you can SKIP DUPLICATES!) Is some obstacle in disproving the claim that the R > N. If anything, it shows just how easily R fits into N, so much so, that it can fit multiple times over! It's like if you with a group of 100 people came to a hotel, and the manager said that not only does he have room for everyone, he has room for everyone multiple times over, everyone can have multiple rooms for themselves. It's the same here, the Reals can have multiple "rooms" in the naturals "hotel" tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surjection.svg

As you can see from the picture, in this case, N would be the X, and Y would be the Reals I am listing. What in the world is the problem? In the picture it shows Y as smaller than X, how can you use that to claim my list cannot include all the Reals?

The situation is so sad you have it backwards. You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number. And you keep demonstrating that some natural numbers can be mapped to multiple real numbers. Do you actually comprehend the difference between an injective, bijective and surjective map?

What you continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number. What you fail to demonstrate is a bijective map between R and N.

Let me ask you this, how is it possible for a Real to NOT be on the list? My listing method is informational, I go through every option that can exist in a certain information space, and then it moves to a higher information space, and then to an even higher one, and so on, and so on. eventually, any finite piece of data will be on the list at some point. So if it's a number you can describe using information, it means necessarily that it will be on the list, how can it not?

I have demonstrated that every Real can be on the list, but you seem to be incapable of understanding it. I have no idea why

You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number... continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number

How is that not a contradiction, So if it can list every given number in the Reals, then it lists all the Reals! You are saying it yourself!

Again, tell me how it is even possible for there to be some finite number (all numbers are) or representation/function that is not listed at some point, in a list that includes all finite information as list items inside it? Tell me!

So yes, I have shown that EVERY Real number is on my list because I HAVE shown that every possible "language description" is on my list. If every possible description is listed, it follows that every possible number is on the list as well, because a number is a description of math! This is so obvious!! How are you missing it? Please don't blame me for your inability to comprehend simplicity!

Just answer me this one simple question, let's assume there is ONE Real number that is not listed. Would you agree that this Real number has a finite representation of some kind?

Boring troll is boring.

I am going to go dink wine on this fine summer day!

[Magnolia5275]

Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more. Because once isn't enough.


I did, and you are literally demonstrating it!

By having to list the same natural number twice or more just to accommodate a few Reals.


You have absolutely no comprehension of what it is that you are even showing.

The situation is so sad you have it backwards. You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number. And you keep demonstrating that some natural numbers can be mapped to multiple real numbers. Do you actually comprehend the difference between an injective, bijective and surjective map?

What you continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number. What you fail to demonstrate is a bijective map between R and N.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection ... surjection

Yes. Precisely. You are listing natural numbers twice or more. Because once isn't enough.

You have absolutely no comprehension, I'm not listing naturals "twice", what are you saying? That my list goes 1,2,3,4,4,4,4,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8? Are you trolling me? What are you talking about?

What may be listed twice is the Reals, but "may" doesn't means you "must", just once is enough, there is nothing in my method that says you have to list the Reals multiple times, you can skip the duplicated! Just don't include them when you get to them. Have the algorithm take as input all the previous boxes so it can skip listing the duplicates.

All I said about the list, is that in its simple form, it will list the Reals multiple times in the list, You don't have to do that, you can just skip the duplicates and not list them!

Regardless, this is irrelevant, you cannot claim that a surjection (which has no necessity of even being on my list, you can SKIP DUPLICATES!) Is some obstacle in disproving the claim that the R > N. If anything, it shows just how easily R fits into N, so much so, that it can fit multiple times over! It's like if you with a group of 100 people came to a hotel, and the manager said that not only does he have room for everyone, he has room for everyone multiple times over, everyone can have multiple rooms for themselves. It's the same here, the Reals can have multiple "rooms" in the naturals "hotel" tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surjection.svg

As you can see from the picture, in this case, N would be the X, and Y would be the Reals I am listing. What in the world is the problem? In the picture it shows Y as smaller than X, how can you use that to claim my list cannot include all the Reals?

The situation is so sad you have it backwards. You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number. And you keep demonstrating that some natural numbers can be mapped to multiple real numbers. Do you actually comprehend the difference between an injective, bijective and surjective map?

What you continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number. What you fail to demonstrate is a bijective map between R and N.

Let me ask you this, how is it possible for a Real to NOT be on the list? My listing method is informational, I go through every option that can exist in a certain information space, and then it moves to a higher information space, and then to an even higher one, and so on, and so on. eventually, any finite piece of data will be on the list at some point. So if it's a number you can describe using information, it means necessarily that it will be on the list, how can it not?

I have demonstrated that every Real can be on the list, but you seem to be incapable of understanding it. I have no idea why

You keep demonstrating that ANY GIVEN real number can be mapped to a natural number... continue to fail to demonstrate that EVERY Real numbers can be mapped to unique natural number

How is that not a contradiction, So if it can list every given number in the Reals, then it lists all the Reals! You are saying it yourself!

Again, tell me how it is even possible for there to be some finite number (all numbers are) or representation/function that is not listed at some point, in a list that includes all finite information as list items inside it? Tell me!

So yes, I have shown that EVERY Real number is on my list because I HAVE shown that every possible "language description" is on my list. If every possible description is listed, it follows that every possible number is on the list as well, because a number is a description of math! This is so obvious!! How are you missing it? Please don't blame me for your inability to comprehend simplicity!

Just answer me this one simple question, let's assume there is ONE Real number that is not listed. Would you agree that this Real number has a finite representation of some kind?

Boring troll is boring.

I am going to go dink wine on this fine summer day!

How dare you call me boring! I show you an ingenious proof that N = R, and you call me boring?? I demand an apology! Not even the Feral goats in Ireland would behave this way! Not even in during mating seasons!

[Skepdick]

You have absolutely no comprehension, I'm not listing naturals "twice", what are you saying? That my list goes 1,2,3,4,4,4,4,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8? Are you trolling me? What are you talking about?

What may be listed twice is the Reals, but "may" doesn't means you "must", just once is enough, there is nothing in my method that says you have to list the Reals multiple times, you can skip the duplicated! Just don't include them when you get to them. Have the algorithm take as input all the previous boxes so it can skip listing the duplicates.

All I said about the list, is that in its simple form, it will list the Reals multiple times in the list, You don't have to do that, you can just skip the duplicates and not list them!

Regardless, this is irrelevant, you cannot claim that a surjection (which has no necessity of even being on my list, you can SKIP DUPLICATES!) Is some obstacle in disproving the claim that the R > N. If anything, it shows just how easily R fits into N, so much so, that it can fit multiple times over! It's like if you with a group of 100 people came to a hotel, and the manager said that not only does he have room for everyone, he has room for everyone multiple times over, everyone can have multiple rooms for themselves. It's the same here, the Reals can have multiple "rooms" in the naturals "hotel" tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Surjection.svg

As you can see from the picture, in this case, N would be the X, and Y would be the Reals I am listing. What in the world is the problem? In the picture it shows Y as smaller than X, how can you use that to claim my list cannot include all the Reals?





Let me ask you this, how is it possible for a Real to NOT be on the list? My listing method is informational, I go through every option that can exist in a certain information space, and then it moves to a higher information space, and then to an even higher one, and so on, and so on. eventually, any finite piece of data will be on the list at some point. So if it's a number you can describe using information, it means necessarily that it will be on the list, how can it not?

I have demonstrated that every Real can be on the list, but you seem to be incapable of understanding it. I have no idea why



How is that not a contradiction, So if it can list every given number in the Reals, then it lists all the Reals! You are saying it yourself!

Again, tell me how it is even possible for there to be some finite number (all numbers are) or representation/function that is not listed at some point, in a list that includes all finite information as list items inside it? Tell me!

So yes, I have shown that EVERY Real number is on my list because I HAVE shown that every possible "language description" is on my list. If every possible description is listed, it follows that every possible number is on the list as well, because a number is a description of math! This is so obvious!! How are you missing it? Please don't blame me for your inability to comprehend simplicity!

Just answer me this one simple question, let's assume there is ONE Real number that is not listed. Would you agree that this Real number has a finite representation of some kind?

Boring troll is boring.

I am going to go dink wine on this fine summer day!

How dare you call me boring! I show you an ingenious proof that N = R, and you call me boring?? I demand an apology! Not even the Feral goats in Ireland would behave this way! Not even in during mating seasons!

If you had done what you claimed to have done I would've been paying attention to you instead of drinking wine.

My drinking wine is the proof of you being boring.

Also, I am being quite modest when I say that I am drinking wine. I am actually tripping on mushrooms. But the point stands.

If you weren't boring I'd chose your "proof" over the mushrooms!

[Magnolia5275]

Boring troll is boring.

I am going to go dink wine on this fine summer day!

How dare you call me boring! I show you an ingenious proof that N = R, and you call me boring?? I demand an apology! Not even the Feral goats in Ireland would behave this way! Not even in during mating seasons!

If you had done what you claimed to have done I would've been paying attention to you instead of drinking wine.

My drinking wine is the proof of you being boring.

Also, I am being quite modest when I say that I am drinking wine. I am actually tripping on mushrooms. But the point stands.

If you weren't boring I'd chose your "proof" over the mushrooms!

Well, that explains why you are not comprehending anything I say! Reread the proof when you are not drunk, stoned, tripping, or whatever...

This is my last response, I showed everything there is to show. There is nothing left for me to say here. bye.

[Skepdick]

How dare you call me boring! I show you an ingenious proof that N = R, and you call me boring?? I demand an apology! Not even the Feral goats in Ireland would behave this way! Not even in during mating seasons!

If you had done what you claimed to have done I would've been paying attention to you instead of drinking wine.

My drinking wine is the proof of you being boring.

Also, I am being quite modest when I say that I am drinking wine. I am actually tripping on mushrooms. But the point stands.

If you weren't boring I'd chose your "proof" over the mushrooms!

Well, that explains why you are not comprehending anything I say! Reread the proof when you are not drunk, stoned, tripping, or whatever...

This is my last response, I showed everything there is to show. There is nothing left for me to say here. bye.

I did read it.

That's exactly why I decided to do something else entirely.

[Magnolia5275]

If you had done what you claimed to have done I would've been paying attention to you instead of drinking wine.

My drinking wine is the proof of you being boring.

Also, I am being quite modest when I say that I am drinking wine. I am actually tripping on mushrooms. But the point stands.

If you weren't boring I'd chose your "proof" over the mushrooms!

Well, that explains why you are not comprehending anything I say! Reread the proof when you are not drunk, stoned, tripping, or whatever...

This is my last response, I showed everything there is to show. There is nothing left for me to say here. bye.

I did read it.

That's exactly why I decided to do something else entirely.

(Reread it and then read it again...)^(1000^1000) maybe then you will finally get it. This is my last response.

[Skepdick]

(Reread it and then read it again...)^(1000^1000) maybe then you will finally get it. This is my last response.

I won't be wasting my time like that with your finite objections.

[attofishpi]

I am going to go dink wine on this fine summer day!

...bullshit.