Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #47017 > unrolled thread

Qucksort for Linked List

Started byxerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com>
First post2016-12-02 10:14 -0800
Last post2016-12-03 08:05 +0100
Articles 20 on this page of 128 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 10:14 -0800
    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-02 19:17 +0000
      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-02 22:09 +0100
        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-02 21:26 +0000
          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-02 22:37 +0100
            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-02 21:41 +0000
      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0000
          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-12 18:34 +0000
          Re: Qucksort for Linked List asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-12 10:44 -0800
            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-12 21:30 +0000
          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-13 07:26 +0000
            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-13 17:51 +0000
              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 14:52 -0800
              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-14 10:26 +0000
              Re: Qucksort for Linked List "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 13:05 +0100
                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-14 14:06 +0000
                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 16:59 +0100
                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 20:19 +0000
                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-14 21:23 +0000
                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-14 21:42 +0000
                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-14 22:43 +0000
                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-16 11:02 +0000
                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-16 23:00 +0000
                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-16 23:00 -0800
                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-17 20:17 +0000
                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 21:15 +0000
                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 21:49 +0000
                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 21:51 +0000
                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 21:52 +0000
                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 21:56 +0000
                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 22:04 +0000
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Paavo Helde <myfirstname@osa.pri.ee> - 2016-12-19 00:22 +0200
                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 00:18 +0100
                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 08:58 +0100
                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:17 -0800
                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 20:14 +0000
                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2016-12-23 10:55 -0800
                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 12:08 -0800
                                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-27 10:39 +0100
                                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 17:48 +0000
                                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 17:53 +0000
                                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 18:52 +0000
                                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 19:06 +0000
                                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 19:17 +0000
                                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 21:05 +0000
                                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 21:15 +0000
                                                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 21:21 +0000
                                                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 21:29 +0000
                                                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-27 21:33 +0000
                                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-28 10:03 +0100
                                                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:34 +0000
                                                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 09:38 +0100
                                                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 16:40 +0000
                                                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 08:55 -0800
                                                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 17:02 +0000
                                                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 17:12 +0000
                                                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-28 17:21 +0000
                                                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 11:05 -0600
                                                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-29 17:43 +0000
                                                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-30 09:48 +0100
                                                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-30 11:37 +0000
                                                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-30 13:23 +0100
                                                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 11:00 +0100
                                                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-29 09:43 +0100
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 22:56 +0000
                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-18 22:52 +0000
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-18 23:07 +0000
                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 05:48 +0000
                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-19 08:09 +0000
                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-19 08:06 +0000
                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com - 2016-12-19 04:46 -0800
                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 15:04 +0100
                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 06:40 -0800
                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 18:48 +0100
                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 18:53 +0000
                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 21:26 +0100
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 20:32 +0000
                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 19:09 +0000
                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 19:14 +0000
                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-19 19:31 +0000
                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 19:45 +0000
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-19 20:19 +0000
                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-20 07:18 +0000
                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List leigh.v.johnston@googlemail.com - 2016-12-20 04:31 -0800
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-21 07:08 +0000
                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-21 19:39 +0000
                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:54 +0000
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 19:28 +0000
                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-21 19:43 +0000
                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-21 20:34 +0000
                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 20:53 +0000
                                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-21 20:58 +0000
                                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-21 23:34 +0000
                                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-22 00:19 +0000
                                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2017-01-04 07:04 +0000
                                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 07:18 -0800
                                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-01-04 18:39 +0000
                                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2017-01-05 07:29 -0800
                                                          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2017-01-05 21:21 +0000
                                                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-01-06 10:35 +1300
                                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-22 21:43 -0800
                            Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-22 22:09 -0800
                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 17:00 +0000
                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-23 12:03 -0800
                                  Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 20:25 +0000
                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 20:56 +0000
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 22:02 +0000
                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-23 22:14 +0000
                                    Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 13:56 -0800
                                      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> - 2016-12-29 23:26 +0000
                                        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-29 20:25 -0800
                              Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2017-01-04 07:07 +0000
                                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-01-26 22:40 -0800
    Re: Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 13:47 -0800
      Re: Qucksort for Linked List ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2016-12-02 17:38 -0500
        Re: Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 14:53 -0800
          Re: Qucksort for Linked List Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:50 -0500
          Re: Qucksort for Linked List ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2016-12-02 21:17 -0500
            Re: Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 20:44 -0800
              Re: Qucksort for Linked List xerofoify <xerofoify@gmail.com> - 2016-12-02 20:52 -0800
                Re: Qucksort for Linked List Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
              Re: Qucksort for Linked List ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2016-12-03 13:38 -0500
      Re: Qucksort for Linked List Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-12-03 01:46 -0800
        Re: Qucksort for Linked List Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2016-12-12 13:18 +0000
    Re: Qucksort for Linked List "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach+usenet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 01:16 +0100
      Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 08:25 +0100
    Re: Qucksort for Linked List bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 08:05 +0100

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#47649

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-27 17:48 +0000
Message-ID<msKdnVtfhPseNP_FnZ2dnUU78VPNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47640
On 27/12/2016 09:39, David Brown wrote:
> 1 + ω = ω

If "+" means addition than 1 + ω = ω is patently false.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47650

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-27 17:53 +0000
Message-ID<msKdnVpfhPsFN__FnZ2dnUU78VOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47649
On 27/12/2016 17:48, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 27/12/2016 09:39, David Brown wrote:
>> 1 + ω = ω
>
> If "+" means addition than 1 + ω = ω is patently false.

This of course is predicated on ω being a variable and not a 
classification: if it is a classification then I assume it means 
something along the lines of:

1 + an integer = an integer

So basically, David Brown, stop being such a pompous dick.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47652

FromGareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Date2016-12-27 18:52 +0000
Message-ID<87wpelrypn.fsf@gmail.com>
In reply to#47650
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:

> On 27/12/2016 17:48, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 27/12/2016 09:39, David Brown wrote:
>>> 1 + ω = ω
>>
>> If "+" means addition than 1 + ω = ω is patently false.
>
> This of course is predicated on ω being a variable and not a
> classification: if it is a classification then I assume it means
> something along the lines of:

It's the first transfinite ordinal - which you'd know if ... oh, never mind.

Suffice to say, it's the correct and normal notation used in explaining
the Hilbert Hotel paradox and such like, a formally correct way of
writing what we casually think of as
                            1+∞ = ∞

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47654

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-27 19:06 +0000
Message-ID<RZSdnRTycOFUJv_FnZ2dnUU78eudnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47652
On 27/12/2016 18:52, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 27/12/2016 17:48, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On 27/12/2016 09:39, David Brown wrote:
>>>> 1 + ω = ω
>>>
>>> If "+" means addition than 1 + ω = ω is patently false.
>>
>> This of course is predicated on ω being a variable and not a
>> classification: if it is a classification then I assume it means
>> something along the lines of:
>
> It's the first transfinite ordinal - which you'd know if ... oh, never mind.
>
> Suffice to say, it's the correct and normal notation used in explaining
> the Hilbert Hotel paradox and such like, a formally correct way of
> writing what we casually think of as
>                             1+∞ = ∞

Not the same thing at all which you'd know if you weren't an autsy 
fucktard*.

/Flibble

* Not all autistic people are fucktards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47655

FromGareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Date2016-12-27 19:17 +0000
Message-ID<8737h9mbaa.fsf@gmail.com>
In reply to#47654
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:

> Not the same thing at all which you'd know if you weren't an autsy
> fucktard*.

You're funny.  Not massively smart, but funny.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47659

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-27 21:05 +0000
Message-ID<QJ-dnWp1LeELSv_FnZ2dnUU78b-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47655
On 27/12/2016 19:17, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Not the same thing at all which you'd know if you weren't an autsy
>> fucktard*.
>
> You're funny.  Not massively smart, but funny.

Not smart? Infinity is not a member of the set of ordinals (which must 
be integers). As I said you are the fucktarded one not me.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47660

FromGareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Date2016-12-27 21:15 +0000
Message-ID<87zijh2hvb.fsf@gmail.com>
In reply to#47659
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:

> On 27/12/2016 19:17, Gareth Owen wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Not the same thing at all which you'd know if you weren't an autsy
>>> fucktard*.
>>
>> You're funny.  Not massively smart, but funny.
>
> Not smart? Infinity is not a member of the set of ordinals (which must
> be integers). As I said you are the fucktarded one not me.

Omega is the first "transfinite ordinal".  This is first-year university
level mathematics, so you won't have come across it. It is the ordinal
associated with the set integers but is not itself an integer.  Rather
it is a member of a larger set of which the integers are a proper
subset.  Note the first and fourth bullet points on this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number

which prove, once again, that you don't know what you're talking about.

Go read a maths book above high school level, Leigh.  Actually, don't,
you're much less boring when you're being stubbornly ignorant.

Also, didn't claim to have killfiled me last week?

Can you do it again please? I much prefer it when you don't reply to me,
as I don't feel obliged to endlessly point out how you know.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47661

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-27 21:21 +0000
Message-ID<iKWdnZdqt6DaRv_FnZ2dnUU78fnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47660
On 27/12/2016 21:15, Gareth Owen wrote:
> Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 27/12/2016 19:17, Gareth Owen wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> Not the same thing at all which you'd know if you weren't an autsy
>>>> fucktard*.
>>>
>>> You're funny.  Not massively smart, but funny.
>>
>> Not smart? Infinity is not a member of the set of ordinals (which must
>> be integers). As I said you are the fucktarded one not me.
>
> Omega is the first "transfinite ordinal".  This is first-year university
> level mathematics, so you won't have come across it. It is the ordinal
> associated with the set integers but is not itself an integer.  Rather
> it is a member of a larger set of which the integers are a proper
> subset.  Note the first and fourth bullet points on this page
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number
>
> which prove, once again, that you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Go read a maths book above high school level, Leigh.  Actually, don't,
> you're much less boring when you're being stubbornly ignorant.
>
> Also, didn't claim to have killfiled me last week?
>
> Can you do it again please? I much prefer it when you don't reply to me,
> as I don't feel obliged to endlessly point out how you know.

You are full of shit. Just as with the Riemann sphere, extended complex 
plane and projective geometry which are all bullshit you think infinity 
can be a member of a set.  Infinity is NOT an ordinal number; these 
abstractions are made up by minds which were fried; you have been 
drinking the too much koolaid (or your mind is also fried) if you think 
differently.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47662

FromGareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Date2016-12-27 21:29 +0000
Message-ID<87r34tysab.fsf@gmail.com>
In reply to#47661
Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:

> You are full of shit. Just as with the Riemann sphere, extended
> complex plane and projective geometry which are all bullshit you think
> infinity can be a member of a set.

> Infinity is NOT an ordinal number; these abstractions are made up by
> minds which were fried

Would that my mind were capable of functioning on the level of Georg
Cantor's.  Would that yours were....

> you have been drinking the too much koolaid (or your mind is also
> fried) if you think differently.

If you actually believe this, you are a moron, Leigh.
If you don't believe this, you are just another emo-kid troll, and not
one of the better ones.

Either way, I no longer find you sufficiently entertaining, so *plonk*

(My killfile, you'll discover, is not a lie used to escape an argument)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47663

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-27 21:33 +0000
Message-ID<GtudnUqfz5S-Q__FnZ2dnUU78a2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47662
On 27/12/2016 21:29, Gareth Owen wrote:

> Either way, I no longer find you sufficiently entertaining, so *plonk*

Finally.

>
> (My killfile, you'll discover, is not a lie used to escape an argument)

This is great news; it means I no longer have to reply to your absurd 
arguments.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47684

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2016-12-28 10:03 +0100
Message-ID<o3vv26$ke1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#47659
On 27/12/16 22:05, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 27/12/2016 19:17, Gareth Owen wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Not the same thing at all which you'd know if you weren't an autsy
>>> fucktard*.
>>
>> You're funny.  Not massively smart, but funny.
> 
> Not smart? Infinity is not a member of the set of ordinals (which must
> be integers). As I said you are the fucktarded one not me.
> 

The ordinals ("counting numbers") don't stop at just the positive
integers.  The first infinite ordinal is known as "omega", or ω.  The
next infinite ordinal is ω + 1, then ω + 2, and so on up to ω + ω, or
ω·2.  You can keep going as far as you want - look up Wikipedia if you
want to know how.  However, 2·ω = 1 + ω = ω.

There is no such thing as "the set of ordinals".  There /is/ "the set of
all finite ordinals", which is ω, since each ordinal is the set
containing all previous ordinals.  There is the /class/ of all ordinals,
because there is a way to define ordinals, but it is not a set.

For cardinals ("size numbers"), it is a little different.  Finite
cardinals match up with finite ordinals, but it gets different once you
start with infinite cardinals.  The first infinite cardinal ℵ₀ is the
size of the (infinite) set of natural numbers - it is also the size of ω
and ω + 1.  But ℵ₀ + 1 = 1 + ℵ₀ = ℵ₀·2 = 2·ℵ₀ = ℵ₀.  It is not until you
try to do 2 ^ ℵ₀ that you get a bigger infinite cardinal.

When people talk about "infinity" or use the symbol ∞, they are doing so
in a loser sense - they just mean "bigger than anything finite", like a
string of sausages that does not end.

Don't worry is this is all beyond you - it is beyond most people who
have not studied university level mathematics.  It has no impact on
practical programming (though infinities do turn up in the theory of
computation, like the length of a Turing machine tape), and no impact on
sausages.  It would be nice, for a change, for you to accept that there
really is mathematics beyond counting on your fingers and toes, and that
it is both interesting and (at least sometimes) useful even if /you/
can't understand it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47689

FromGareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Date2016-12-28 15:34 +0000
Message-ID<877f6kf4oj.fsf@gmail.com>
In reply to#47684
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> There is no such thing as "the set of ordinals".  There /is/ "the set of
> all finite ordinals", which is ω, since each ordinal is the set
> containing all previous ordinals.  There is the /class/ of all ordinals,
> because there is a way to define ordinals, but it is not a set.

On a related note, I am currently attempting to teach my goldfish to
speak Norwegian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47707

FromDavid Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date2016-12-29 09:38 +0100
Message-ID<o42hvl$8b0$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#47689
On 28/12/16 16:34, Gareth Owen wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> 
>> There is no such thing as "the set of ordinals".  There /is/ "the set of
>> all finite ordinals", which is ω, since each ordinal is the set
>> containing all previous ordinals.  There is the /class/ of all ordinals,
>> because there is a way to define ordinals, but it is not a set.
> 
> On a related note, I am currently attempting to teach my goldfish to
> speak Norwegian.
> 

It will take time, but I am sure if you persist then it will learn in
the end.  /I/ did, and we Scots are not known for our language abilities :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47691

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-28 16:40 +0000
Message-ID<4vCdnSbHHvmHdv7FnZ2dnUU78d-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47684
On 28/12/2016 09:03, David Brown wrote:ω.
>
> There is no such thing as "the set of ordinals".  There /is/ "the set of
> all finite ordinals", which is ω, since each ordinal is the set

Bullshit. There is no such thing as the set of finite ordinals as there 
is an infinite number of ordinals; you have also been drinking the 
koolaid like that idiot Owen.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47692

FromDaniel <danielaparker@gmail.com>
Date2016-12-28 08:55 -0800
Message-ID<c1ebf393-2447-4692-883d-e1a8986ded96@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#47691
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
> 
> There is no such thing as the set of finite ordinals as there 
> is an infinite number of ordinals;

The set of finite ordinals is infinite.

Daniel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47693

FromGareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Date2016-12-28 17:02 +0000
Message-ID<87y3z02dhe.fsf@gmail.com>
In reply to#47692
Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> 
>> There is no such thing as the set of finite ordinals as there 
>> is an infinite number of ordinals;
>
> The set of finite ordinals is infinite.

Mr Flibble isn't too bright

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47694

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-28 17:12 +0000
Message-ID<jsqdneL1RIsFb_7FnZ2dnUU78f2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47692
On 28/12/2016 16:55, Daniel wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>
>> There is no such thing as the set of finite ordinals as there
>> is an infinite number of ordinals;
>
> The set of finite ordinals is infinite.

Bullshit; you cannot have a set of infinite things as infinity is, 
unlike a set, unbounded.  Countable infinities are unbounded just like 
uncountable infinities despite what Wikipedia says.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47695

FromMr Flibble <flibble@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-28 17:21 +0000
Message-ID<ZbGdna3i38Yuaf7FnZ2dnUU78IednZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47694
On 28/12/2016 17:12, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 28/12/2016 16:55, Daniel wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as the set of finite ordinals as there
>>> is an infinite number of ordinals;
>>
>> The set of finite ordinals is infinite.
>
> Bullshit; you cannot have a set of infinite things as infinity is,
> unlike a set, unbounded.  Countable infinities are unbounded just like
> uncountable infinities despite what Wikipedia says.

Of course what I meant to say was that a countable infinity is unbounded 
just like an uncountable one.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47718

FromMr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>
Date2016-12-29 11:05 -0600
Message-ID<qKSdndG3rN363_jFnZ2dnUU78V3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#47694
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 28/12/16 18:12, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 28/12/2016 16:55, Daniel wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 at 11:41:06 AM UTC-5, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> There is no such thing as the set of finite ordinals as there
>>>> is an infinite number of ordinals;
>>> 
>>> The set of finite ordinals is infinite.
>> 
>> Bullshit; you cannot have a set of infinite things as infinity is,
>> unlike a set, unbounded.  Countable infinities are unbounded just like
>> uncountable infinities despite what Wikipedia says.
>> 
> 
> Sets don't have to be finite - why on earth would you think that?
> 
> And as for "bounded" and "unbounded", you have to be very careful of
> what you mean.  These terms refer to order, not size.  The set
> 
> 	{x ∈ ℝ : x > 0 and x < 1}
> 
> is infinite and unbounded (since the limits, 0 and 1, are not in the
> set), while the set
> 
> 	{x ∈ ℝ : x ≥ 0 and x ≤ 1}
> 
> is infinite and bounded.
> 
> (All finite sets are bounded.)

Exactly.

/Flibble

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#47724

FromGareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com>
Date2016-12-29 17:43 +0000
Message-ID<87h95miqb9.fsf@gmail.com>
In reply to#47694
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:

> And as for "bounded" and "unbounded", you have to be very careful of
> what you mean.  These terms refer to order, not size.  The set
>
> 	{x ∈ ℝ : x > 0 and x < 1}
>
> is infinite and unbounded (since the limits, 0 and 1, are not in the
> set), while the set

That's not what we were taught re bounded and unbounded. The definition
I was taught was to do with there being a metric, and that there was a

            ∃r ∈ ℝ such that ||x|| < r  ∀x ∈ S

> 	{x ∈ ℝ : x ≥ 0 and x ≤ 1}
>
> is infinite and bounded.

This is closer to the definition I know for open/closed (but not the same)

> (All finite sets are bounded.)

Still true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web