John Gabriel
2016-08-21 20:54:18 UTC
The first major stumbling block is that in order to define rational numbers using set theory, we already need to know how to "count". Did you get that?
That's right, you need to be able to compute the cardinality of a given set. Unless you are one of Cantor's delusional followers, cardinal value means NUMBER, not bijective cardinality myths involving sets whose members are not distinct, that is, the illusion of infinitely many points. Wake up you fucking morons!
Now, do you have any clue what effort went into deriving the machinery of counting numbers which came long after ratios of MAGNITUDES ???
Of course you don't. Chances are good you're a retard who has been brainwashed to believe in the bullshit that you do.
Unless you have my read my article, you don't have a clue what it means to be a "number":
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo
After reading that article, ask yourself O moron, does set theory require the natural numbers to be in place? Hint: YES
Does the von Neumann ordinal approach make any sense at all? Hint: NO
Is there any valid construction of irrational number? Hint: NO
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
Since there is no valid construction of irrational number, can there be any valid mathematical concept for real number? Hint: NO
That's right, you need to be able to compute the cardinality of a given set. Unless you are one of Cantor's delusional followers, cardinal value means NUMBER, not bijective cardinality myths involving sets whose members are not distinct, that is, the illusion of infinitely many points. Wake up you fucking morons!
Now, do you have any clue what effort went into deriving the machinery of counting numbers which came long after ratios of MAGNITUDES ???
Of course you don't. Chances are good you're a retard who has been brainwashed to believe in the bullshit that you do.
Unless you have my read my article, you don't have a clue what it means to be a "number":
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-we-got-numbers-john-gabriel?trk=seokp_posts_primary_cluster_res_photo
After reading that article, ask yourself O moron, does set theory require the natural numbers to be in place? Hint: YES
Does the von Neumann ordinal approach make any sense at all? Hint: NO
Is there any valid construction of irrational number? Hint: NO
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLSTROakNyVXlQUEU
Since there is no valid construction of irrational number, can there be any valid mathematical concept for real number? Hint: NO