spooky3

They are not striking because of salary.

Did I mention the word salary?

Did you answer the question?

Just as others what? That sentence doesn't make sense.

Oh yes it does

Nope, because that implies that infinity has a size, which by it's very definition, it doesn't. Double infinity is equal to infinity. To state otherwise would imply that there were numbers larger than infinity, which there isn't.

Look, even Lisa Simpson understands it!

If "infinity" is interpreted as any specific transfinite cardinal number κ ≥ \aleph_0 in cardinal arithmetic, then "infinity plus 1" = κ+1 = κ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_plus_one

EDIT:

oops, wrong quote. Even though that last one states that afterwards it is infinity, but at the point of calculation it is theoretically larger.

In mathematics, infinity plus one has meaning for the hyperreals, and also as the number ω+1 (omega plus one) in the ordinal numbers and surreal numbers.

Yawwwnn more of the usual Daily Fail tripe spouted by you. Unions do not hold people and businesses to ransom, if I assume that's what you mean. A union does not call a strike, they ballot their members on whether they should accept specific terms and conditions and ask them if they are prepared to take strike action should negotiations fail. Unions are there to try and settle disputes between employees and their employers. I suspect you're one of those people who would like to see the return of workhouses and public floggings etc, am I right?

No you are wrong in your assumptions!

So are you really saying we are not being ransomed by the unions / workers for more money off us? Really!

Of course you do.

Thankyou, I know.

My rules apply to me just as others.

Of course I am. Everyone is, including you.

I try to at least show disdain when "my" side does wrong, rather than just totally avoid it and sort of defend the really bad ones.

Posing with body parts is barbaric, no matter who does it.

 

War is undignified. Period. There is nothing honorable about war. It is bloody, and brutal and unfair. Even I, who has never and will never go to war know this. To expect dignified behavior from soldiers, often young and scared, is to expect snow in July.

There's a lot of places which would be surprised not to have snow in July, or all year round for that matter

But no, the horrors of war have turned many!

to be fair even though frank seems mainly right wing he does seem to at least consider his position and not just bark out rhetoric.

I see Frank as being ironic at times just baiting whingers, but yes he usually has quite a valid point.

So does Halibut, just wished he applied it equally.

No, you're completely correct, set theory (as I agreed earlier), proves that one set contains more elements than the other, but, both sets are infinite in size - and multiples of infinity are still equal to infinity. Hence I said, due to the nature of infinity and the peculiar rules which apply to it, they can be mathematically proven to be the same length.

Double infinity will always be twice the size of the original set of infinity.

Shock,! horror! I would never have believed it.

No, i'd say Left, but he is selective in what issues he takes the leftist side on, and loves to call people out.

You've completely failed to address the second part of what I wrote; I'll rephrase it for you - do you think that because the Taliban do atrocious things, it's alright for allied forces to do likewise?

 

Do you not agree with me that British and US troops should behave with more dignity and decenecy that the people they're fighting against?

No, what the despicable Taliban do is no excuse to be used to cancel out what we do.

But most sensible people will take it into consideration, especially in a case like this where nothing wrong has actually been done, it's only very very insensitive, and should quite rightly be frowned upon. But, maybe this case will change our laws and they won't be allowed to do it in the future without facing stated consequences within our law.

To cover dosxuks' example there is what is known as a a "proper subset", even though they contain the same elements, they are still different sets.

The set of natural numbers is a proper subset of the set of rational numbers and the set of points in a line segment is a proper subset of the set of points in a line. These are examples in which both the part and the whole are infinite, and the part has the same number of elements as the whole; such cases can tax intuition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_subset

Except I'm not against authority in society so I'm definitely not an anarchist although there may be times where an anarchical attitude may be necessary.

Any which way, you will always fit in somewhere.

Except that ∞ + 1 is already in the infinite set

 

Lets try a different way of explaining this

 

Lets assume A is the set of natural numbers from 0 on to infinity

 

And lets assume B is the set of real numbers from 0 on to infinity

 

You can subtract the set of natural numbers from the set of real number and still have an infinitely large set.

 

So B - A makes sense has a result

 

You cannot subtract the set of real numbers from the set of natural numbers because there values in the set of real numbers which don't exist in the set of natural numbers.

 

So A - B does not make sense and has no result.

 

So A and B are different, but B contains A, therefore B is bigger than A

 

You could progressively divide every element of A by 2,3,4 ... ∞, adding the result back into A every time, and B would still contain values that are not in A therefore B would still be bigger that A.

 

This is because every manipulation you do to a countable set using another countable set results in a countable set.

 

The only way to make A equivalent to B would be to merge them which would take a countable set and perform a union with an uncountable set resulting in an uncountable set

 

Please someone tell me if I've got that the right way round, I'm getting a headache

Sounds about right to me, but I don't have my trusty book on the subject... and I know they add infinite sets together in that...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complexity-Cryptography-Introduction-John-Talbot/dp/0521617715/ref=sr_1_1?

What dosxuk writes sounds right, but he's acting on the original sets and not the produced sets, almost like going back in time to recreate his sets before his sets were amended. Basically in reality he's using the feedback as a pre-qualifier, which you can't do.

I didn't say they were, just that according to the book Charlie Wilson's War, the Taliban were created and funded by the CIA in order to fight the Russians

The Americans didn't support them until later (well after they were formed)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Emergence

You can't pick a number, because there isn't a number big enough, you can only use a placeholder. Although generally if you've got a term involving ∞, the answer is ∞.

 

For example, 2∞ = ∞ as well as ∞/2 = ∞ (rearrangment of the first).

Yes, certain equations look more confusing than others (and that is a good one), but if you are using it, say in a series, then you start at say 0 and keep incrementing until you reach infinity (never), but each increment is still a number.

But to use it you need to pick an actual number and that can always be bigger.

I want strictly controled immigration but I want all the vital industries(including public transport) to be nationalised), where does this put me?? dont say national socialist please!!

Not being an expert on the subject by any means, but that sounds pretty apt to me.

Definitely left, but not sure where views on immigration plays in this? Hopefully someone better suited can be more precise!

I'm basically saying that I don't see my politics as being fixed in any way. I tend to think that the whole of politics is just a smokescreen to keep people in easily defined categories arguing amongst themselves while the people at the top mainly implement policies that are necessary but try to spin them in a way that appeals to their supporters while at the same time make them look 'statesmenlike' to everybody else. The present political system is the biggest game of charades in town and plays at setting up false dichotomies everywhere you find it. Personally I find it all very childish.

Sorry, I believe you do fit into one category or another.

But your argument is one I hear very often from those who call themselves Anarchists.

Anarchism

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

and further...

Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology

Except it doesn't, because of the nature of infinity!

But if you are to test it you need to decide on a value of infinity, but you can always double it (or increase it anyhow). So terms such as double infinity are used, there was a very good BBC documentary on the subject a few years ago!

Not that I think you need any help in understanding it, but:

These cases demonstrate a paradox not in the sense that they demonstrate a logical contradiction, but in the sense that they demonstrate a counter-intuitive result that is provably true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel

True, yet so many people have trouble with the idea, they just seem to think it's a big value

I'll double that!

They don't like infinity because it means they can't calculate an answer when they hit a term in an equation containing it, which means there is either something wrong with the theory they are using to make the calculation or they are missing a way of making the calculation which avoids the infinite term.

 

They understand infinity very well

 

Did you know for example there is more than one infinity ?

 

For example take the set of positive integers starting from zero and going on forever

 

This is a countably infinite set, so called because you can count each individual element, you'll never reach the end though because there isn't one.

 

Then take the set of real numbers, this is not a countably infinite set, you can't count each element one at a time, take any two real numbers which differ by as small an amount as you like and it's always possible to put another number between them, so you can't count the set, which makes that infinity larger than the earlier one.

 

Further there are even higher orders of infinity, I knew about the first two from school but the idea that there were more came as something of a surprise.

 

I found that fairly mind boggling, and I believe may have contributed to the nervous breakdowns suffered by Georg Cantor who found a way to make sense of the concept of infinity as an actual entity rather than something that could only be tended towards as a potential entity.

 

So mathematicians and physicists may not like the concept of infinity much, but they do understand it, and saying they are wrong about it just because they don't like it would be incorrect

 

Unless of course you can point to an opposing theory that explains the concept better.

Infinity in most cases is pretty simple to understand.

It's when you need to prove a theorem on an infinite set that it's annoying, simply just because you can never test all possibilities, so where do you call time out... but in those cases the fact of testing the infinite set will be declared so others can take heed!

I go to Charles Clifford, and each and every one always asks me if it's alright to treat me, even the teachers, so I think the rules are there too!

I can't speak for orthodontists, but I have frequently come across a similar situation with GPs; they may have a trainee doctor in attendance, and sometimes will ask the trainee to diagnose (as with when I had a banged-up knee.)

 

It's always entirely permissible to ask to see the doctor without the trainee present, if you so wish. I see no reason why the orthodontist should not be equally accommodating.

 

I suppose it's just about possible that dental regulations mean parents genuinely are not allowed in the room while a trainee is being - er, trained - but I'd be amazed if that were so. I don't have children of my own, but I can't imagine any parent being happy to let them see any healthcare professional who insisted on parents not being present ... that's a red flag warning if ever there was one!

I believe they actually have to ask for permission and that needs to be granted.

So we are being held to ransom by the unions, Labour who have influence over them are doing nothing, yet the media still blames the government, when are they going to start asking the unions and Labour difficult questions.

Labour are making us pay for their petty squabbles! They will then use this to attack the government, hypocrites!