What I don’t like about it is that it’s an example of how much we are willing to organize ourselves around the whims of wealthy people. If the Waltons decided to hire 10,000 people to hand-build a recreation of the great pyramids in the middle of some desert, on one hand we could say, “They are creating jobs,” and on the other we could say, “What the fuck, does American have pharaohs now?”
So I think the top marginal tax rate should be high enough that it is unlikely an individual would be able to fund a complex like this. The building of this complex in particular, though, has me less concerned.
It’s a technical term in math.[/quote] Pretty sure that @knappa knows this.
Uncountably infinite means things like “real numbers” that include π and e and √2.
Well, any given real number is finite, in fact has cardinality 1. You can certainly extend the field of rationals by π and e and √2 and stay countably infinite, in fact the set of computable real numbers (which includes these) is countably infinite.
Fun fact: Cantor didn’t invent the eponymous diagonal argument; Paul Du Bois-Reymond came up with it to prove there was no fastest-growing sequence.
[edited to change “fast” to “fastest”. This thread is some kind of type typo magnet.]
“… designed by the starchitect 1) 2) responsible 3) for New York’s Trump Tower, to last 700 years and survive any and all quakes, up to and including ‘the big one’ …”
700 years 4); that’s a tall order. I’d like to know who did the structural design and see some of the plans 5) and calculations.
2) Composita are hit-or-miss, really. I think this one falls under the latter category.
3) I’d have gone with “guilty of”, but whatever.
4) As we’re apparently brushing the subject of megalomaniacs again, this as a side note: one of the design parameters for Albert Speer’s monumental buildings commissioned by Hitler was that they should still look impressive as ruins after a thousand years or so. Think pyramids etc.
5) I’ve seen the plans for the Apple UFO (as filed for the building permit), and they have some pretty good ideas for the structural design, especially when it comes to earthquakes.
Yes, @knappa is correct, as usually Cantor’s argument is used to show that a set is not countable (i.e., either finite or the same size as the set of integers) because it is too large. Essentially, you can not put the real numbers between zero and one into one-to-one correspondence with the set of counting numbers.
The way you seem to be using it here is more as a construction, wherein you have some number of religions, each with an infinite number of commandments (this assumption is needed to use an infinite version of Cantor’s argument and, considering religions, is not terribly unreasonable), and Cantor’s argument then tells you that your list doesn’t contain all religions.
I’m beginning to see why the vintners aren’t all on board with selling weed simultaneously. That ‘organization’ is the kind of idea I used to have while droned.
You’ve got several things mixed up here. For example:
I could ask the similar question, what’s the next number after 1/2?
One of the two sets involved in Cantor’s argument (the natural numbers) is ordered, the other (the reals between zero and one) is not. The ordering used is completely unimportant in the proof itself.
