Ecmandu wrote:At this point, you're arguing for the sake of arguing, you stopped using mathematical arguments. Your argument is psychosis, no bearing on reality. You want so desperately for there to be orders of infinity, that you have ceased rational discussion.
This invites a kind of meta-discussion -- a discussion about discussion.
The following isn't specifically directed at you, so you can safely ignore it, but if you want, you're welcome to take it in and bake a response for it.
You can interact with people in a large number of ways -- indeed, an infinite number of ways, a pretty
large infinite number of ways (: -- and each one of these ways have certain consequences; and each set of consequences can be compared to every other in order to determine the most preferrable one.
If, for example, you want to be
respectful, I believe you absolutely must abide by the rule that says "Make sure that the other person
wants to hear what you have to say". Just in case, I will repeat, you don't have to be respectful to other people, you act as you see fit, but if you want to be respectful, I believe that's the way to go.
If you think it's fruitless to have a discussion with me, that's fine, and you're absolutely free to act in accordance with that belief, by say, not trying to explain stuff to me. But by telling me things I don't want to hear -- e.g. that you think that I'm arguing for the sake of arguing, that I stopped making valid arguments, etc -- you are being disrespectful. The question is: do you really want to be disrespectful?
And then there's the general question of the extent to which it is useful to talk to people when they don't want to listen to you or when they don't want to listen to what you have to say.
If you think you can educate people that way, make them more intelligent, more capable in life, I don't think that's the way to go. Forcing people to do things against their will can certainly make them do things you want them to do but at the cost of becoming confused.
Let that be the end of this meta-discussion.
Let us return to the subject.
and yes, N and "2N" are equal in value, what so many people have tried to explain to you, is that you CANNOT use operators on infinity!!
I don't know what it means that N and 2N are equal in value. N and 2N are symbols representing the set of natural numbers and the set of
even natural numbers, respectively. You are surely not saying that N and 2N are equal sets i.e. that they have the same elements?
At what point does the sequence terminate? Sure N and 2N have different values, but ONLY in termination, infinity does not terminate though, and so many people in this thread keep trying to explain that to you.
What sequence?
"Let's keep the debate about poor people in the US specifically. It's the land of opportunity. So everyone has an opportunity. That means everyone can get money. So some people who don't have it just aren't using thier opportunities, and then out of those who are using them, then most squander what they gain through poor choices, which keeps them poor. It's no one else's fault. The end."
Mr. Reasonable