The job of Philosophy

If you ever studied Einstein you would understand the continuum hypotheses and the fracking question I just did ask you!

Is the planet Pluto an vertebrate or an invertebrate? Your question is a nonsense question. There is no such thing as a "infinite" number or a "vertebrate" planet.

When we are talking about infinite... we are talking about a set or a sequence (a collection of zero or more value).

Take a irrational number ... such as the square root of 2. It is a single value. If you a set that that included the square root of 2... it is definitely finite (and the quantity is 1).

If you philosophers want to change the definition of the word "infinite"... then you can make the answer mean anything you want. Mathematicians have no problems with this.

The Continuum Hypotheses is about sets, not about numbers.

That is a pretty basic misunderstanding you have.

Holy macaron! And just how do you size sets eh you dumb F?

This is a thread about "The job of Philosophy".

It seems like most of the job of Philosophy is insulting people. I suppose, in that sense, philosophy is still relevant.

You are making it impossible to not deserve every single insult believe me!
Again to the topic answer please, how do you size sets?

To answer your question (although I don't think you are interested in the answer).

A set is a collection of objects. The quantity of objects in the set is its size. The size of any finite set is an integer. And infinite set has a limitless number of objects.

An example of a finite set is the planets in the solar system (notice that this is a collection). The size of this set (i.e. the quantity of planets) is 8.

An example of an infinite set is the set of Integers. There is always one more integer.

Thank you for making my point valid now that we agree that we use numbers to size sets please answer is an irrational number finite or infinite? And locate it precisely in mathematical space! I also would like to know how much information does an irrational number carries! Indulge me!

Sigh.

An irrational number is not a set. It is a number. That is why we call it an irrational number.

If you have a set that contains one irrational number, then it would be a finite set with a size of one. If we have a set that contains one rational number, that would also be finite.

I have no problem teaching you basic math. It seems like you are more interested in throwing insults.

No pal no. You cannot quantize a Set without quantizing first what it contains!
That was my entire point from the beginning and you haven't heard from any proper mathematician around for a simple reason, they KNOW unlike you I have a point here! A Set by definition is not boundless, neither quantitatively nor and specially qualitatively!

I am trying to teach you math as simply as I can. In math, terms have definitions, we are using words to describe mathematical objects, but the words have to be specifically defined. In non-mathematical contexts words can have several different meanings.

If I ask you this question "What is the size of Fred?". You can answer this in several ways... you could give me his height, or his weight, or his volume. If I ask you to line people up in order of size... there are several possible correct answers (someone may be heavier but shorter).

If I ask you "What is the size of Fred's family?"... you will answer with an integer telling me the quantity of people in a collection of people you consider to be a "family".

There are two points here.

1. The size of a set has nothing to do with the size of a member in that set.
2. In mathematics, you need to define the terms you are using in an precise way. In philosophy, you can shift around the meanings of words without much thought.

Of course you can quantize a set without quantizing first what it contains. It is pretty easy.

Here is a set (these number have actual meanings, but I don't need to tell you the meaning.

The first is 3
The second is 15
The third is 19.

You don't know what these numbers mean. You can still tell me the size of the set.

Please answer the questions or GTFO!
What is the size of an irrational number finite or infinite? Locate in mathematical space and precisely please. Finally state exactly how much information it does carry. In between read carefully on the Continuum Hypothesis! It might help. Either you have forgotten on trans finite maths or you are ******* ignoramus!

There you go with the insults again.

You are asking me if a planet is a vertebrate of an invertebrate.

These are nonsense questions you are asking.

If you don't understand the difference between numbers and sets... you can't possibly understand the Continuum Hypothesis.

At each decimal point of an irrational number how many numbers are there and how did you arrive at each decimal?

In my job, I deal with big data. One of the projects we have involves getting sensor readings from hundreds of thousand of individual sensors scattered around the world.

Each sensor has a GPS coordinate, an orientation, and then provides data as X,Y coordinate. We are measuring the location of real things in the real world. (This project started well before covid, but is actually turning out to be useful technology for measuring social distancing).

My team develops the logic to collect this data, and then to ask specific question (for example to detect how often there are two people within 6 feet of each other).

If your point is that I need to understand how the data was collected before I can make decisions from it. I agree with you completely.

If you are just attacking mathematics as useless... then I suppose we disagree.

You are confusing the definition of the word "size". If by word "size" you mean number of digits in base 10 numbers, then you have a point. Yes, we all know that irrational numbers have an infinite number of digits.

That has nothing to do with the size of a set.

Oh FFS go do your home work! And do watch that fracking video you need it. Pay attention to it very carefully it might, "god" willing, it might be the case that you understand the question!

More math from me. More childish insults from you.

Ok. I suppose we both feel we are making progress.