dilberts hotel

[xdugef]

[killing raven sun]

So the set of whole numbers with all the even numbers removed is acording to the above not infinite,

correct, it has elements removed

yet elsewhere you say the set of odd numbers is infinite,

correct, it is a complete set

you contradict yourself.

no, you just lack the ability to understand basic logic

In fact you can subtract any finite number from an infinite set, it remains infinite.

gibberish

You also have implied that infinity is only one element more than a finite number. Again clearly not true.

no, you just did, and you again also assume infinity is a value

[jliat]

So if you want to claim "The only restrictions on this metaphysical system are that all mathematical concepts must be devoid of internal contradiction," is at odds with "metaphysical freedom" don't frame it as if you want to avoid " internal contradiction".

Be brave enough to admit to being nonsensical. Stop hiding behind false reason...

[killing raven sun]

So if you want to claim "The only restrictions on this metaphysical system are that all mathematical concepts must be devoid of internal contradiction," is at odds with "metaphysical freedom" don't frame it as if you want to avoid " internal contradiction".

Be brave enough to admit to being nonsensical. Stop hiding behind false reason...

oh wow james, you are getting senile

[jliat]

So the set of whole numbers with all the even numbers removed is acording to the above not infinite,

correct, it has elements removed

Not correct acording to you!

So you are saying that all the odd numbers are infinite despite not having any of the even numbers.

sure, why not? its an infinite subset of "numbers"

Contradiction - QED.

[xdugef]

[jliat]

gibberish

So thought by those who cant see the logic...

in which you gave two sets - one finite, one infinite, and different by 1.

[jliat]

So if you want to claim "The only restrictions on this metaphysical system are that all mathematical concepts must be devoid of internal contradiction," is at odds with "metaphysical freedom" don't frame it as if you want to avoid " internal contradiction".

Be brave enough to admit to being nonsensical. Stop hiding behind false reason...

oh wow james, you are getting senile

if you think quoting you is the case, you got problems...

[killing raven sun]

So the set of whole numbers with all the even numbers removed is acording to the above not infinite,

correct, it has elements removed

Not correct acording to you!

So you are saying that all the odd numbers are infinite despite not having any of the even numbers.

calm down old man, the set of [whole numbers - "odd numbers"] is clearly not infinite, it has elements removed, but the set [odd numbers] is intact and therefore infinite

Contradiction - QED.

no, you are

[jliat]

math is the polar opposite of metaphysical freedom, cantor was an idiot, and so are his students

Then why try to use subtraction from an infinite set to prove something? That's maths Daric.

[killing raven sun]

gibberish

So thought by those who cant see the logic...

in which you gave two sets - one finite, one infinite, and different by 1.

you dont have a clue james, this is making you look stupider than normal, maybe check your meds

[killing raven sun]

math is the polar opposite of metaphysical freedom, cantor was an idiot, and so are his students

Then why try to use subtraction from an infinite set to prove something? That's maths Daric.

you are really off it today, had a fight with the wife?

[jliat]

, the set of [whole numbers - "odd numbers"] is clearly not infinite, it has elements removed, but the set [odd numbers] is intact and therefore infinite

You slipped up - "the set of [whole numbers - "even numbers"] is clearly not infinite," yet is identical to the set of odd numbers which you say is infinite.

So you are saying the set of odd numbers is not the same as the set of odd numbers .

That's a contradiction...

3 <> (6-3) Durrrrrrr.

You also say that adding to a set makes it not infinite, so adding the set of whole even numbers to the set of odd even numbers makes a finite set and not the infinite set of whole numbers...

[jliat]

math is the polar opposite of metaphysical freedom, cantor was an idiot, and so are his students

Then why try to use subtraction from an infinite set to prove something? That's maths Daric.

you are really off it today, had a fight with the wife?

You are on safer ground trying to be insulting.... i would stay there...

[killing raven sun]

, the set of [whole numbers - "odd numbers"] is clearly not infinite, it has elements removed, but the set [odd numbers] is intact and therefore infinite

You slipped up - "the set of [whole numbers - "even numbers"] is clearly not infinite," yet is identical to the set of odd numbers which you say is infinite.

So you are saying the set of odd numbers is not the same as the set of odd numbers .

i slipped up? do you think this is another "gotcha" moment? you must be starving

the set [whole numbers - "even numbers"] is incomplete, not infinite, the set [odd numbers] is complete therefore infinite

That's a contradiction...

no, you are

3 <> (6-3) Durrrrrrr.

we used to sell tickets to watch james try math but nobody would give a pence

You also say that adding to a set makes it not infinite, so adding the set of whole even numbers to the set of odd even numbers makes a finite set and not the infinite set of whole numbers...

wrong again, if anything can be added to a set it is incomplete, if your set of [even numbers] and [odd numbers] need to be added to form all [whole numbers], then your set of [whole numbers] wasnt infinite, in this case it contained no elements before you added them