It is somewhat counterintuitive, but an uncountable set has more elements than a countable set, although both are infinite.
Been mulling this one over.
Isn't that statement also true when comparing a subset to the countable set from which it is derived? For instance, in our ones and tens example the ones have more elements than the tens yet both are considered countable.
Thanks for the tutorial. I have a block when it comes to math. The fact that I know it comes from poor teacher student relationships in the past only helps a little.
Great links to Wolfram's site by the way. Even though my numerical abilities are decidedly finite I have great admiration for Mr. Wolfram and hadn't realized what a great resource was available on the web.
Your question could be interpreted this way: What is the difference between the sets A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5,...} and B = {10, 20, 30, 40, 50,...}?
Well, it could be interpreted that way, but I was thinking more along the lines of either of them being an equivalent task worthy of Sisyphus in that there would be no practical (there's that word again) difference between counting by ones or tens if the task could never be completed and lasted for all eternity. I mean the difference is clear and it's easy to see that one is a subset of the other but when it comes down to the actual counting.....
So what is the practical difference between a countable set and an uncountable set if both take an infinite amount of time to count? Given an infinite supply would it matter if you counted by ones or by tens? How would this differ?
I think this particular aspect is completely overridden by the prevalence of respawning or save/reload.
Yep. If you wanted to drive home the message of mortality you'd disable the game so it couldn't be played any more. Of course your sales would probably drop. Oh, and you should also make it so that sometimes when you come back to the game it tells you you were killed in your sleep and not let you play any more.
...are very realistic paintings of people creepy? (and paintings as realistic as photographs *do* exist) no! why? because they're *realistic*.
Actually they're not realistic. They're photo-realistic. The difference, as far as creep factor oges, would be that we don't expect photographs to move or talk get disgusted and walk out of the room. Some paintings, even if they're not quite photorealistic, can be creepy. For instance if the eyes appear to move in order to follow you. I once saw a pencil sketch of a face with closed eyes and if you concentrated on it the eyes seemed to flash open suddenly. Everyone who saw it seemed to think that was creepy.
...FreeBSD developer Greg Lehey who recommends 'that the best thing for IBM to do would be to print out every single version as requested and send the resultant 20 tonnes or so of paper to SCO. That would keep them quiet for a while'.
Or better yet, fax it to them via a bank of fax modems and let them pay for the paper...
I've just got my starter set of filters, though, including a flourescent light filter, but I haven't had a change to try it out.
White balance should correct for that without a filter....even pushing the button on the camera can cause problems if you're not careful.
Try pushing the button halfway down until all the auto-stuff locks in and then finish with a slow squeeze of the button (just like shooting with firearms) rather than a quick punch of the button to grab the action.
Another problem is that people use the screen on the back of the camera and hold it out in front of them rather than bracing it against their face and their arms braced against their body.
Get a weirdly-exposed picture (fine, I can live with that), but also get outrageous graininess in the background because the camera decided to go to ISO400 as a "favor". Thanks for nothing...
Get a camera that allows you more lattitude with regard to what it can make decisions on and what it can't. I've got mine set for 100ISO all the time (unless I want to change it).
If your way gave "better" results then there would be no need for the skilled guy. Some people can take a multitude of pictures and all of them will be bad. No matter how technically accurate your pictures are, that doesn't make them "good". There is a lot to be said for composition and sometimes the resultant image doesn't accurately convey the scene but is still a good picture.
Seems to me that you're fixated on one type of subject matter (hot babes) and it could be that the salivation and shaking are affecting enough of your shots that only one in ten is any good. Try taking landscapes (a type of photography where the photographer takes far fewer exposures than someone shooting people) and see if you're steady and composed enough to get a better ratio.
Yep. BofA is really ticking me off lately. My wife had a couple of checks from an individual that she deposited but they didn't clear. Now BofA holds checks from individuals for weeks at a time before crediting the funds. We called them one time and the checks had cleared a week earlier and still weren't credited to the account. They also hold cash if it accompanies personal checks. We're moving to Bank One this weekend. I have a small account with them and they treat me like I'm actually a valued customer! Imagine that!
There's lots of veggie burgers out there that taste great, but McDonalds had to make one that could never compete in taste with their real meat patties.
Surely you jest. How many people in the focus group said, "Can you make it taste like your horse meat?"
Slashdot Mirror
To be pedantic, "This is a reference to the live, 1938 radio broadcast of a dramatization of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds."
I don't think Mr. Wells was that involved with the broadcast itself.
It is somewhat counterintuitive, but an uncountable set has more elements than a countable set, although both are infinite.
Been mulling this one over.
Isn't that statement also true when comparing a subset to the countable set from which it is derived? For instance, in our ones and tens example the ones have more elements than the tens yet both are considered countable.
Thanks for the tutorial. I have a block when it comes to math. The fact that I know it comes from poor teacher student relationships in the past only helps a little.
...} and B = {10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ...}?
Great links to Wolfram's site by the way. Even though my numerical abilities are decidedly finite I have great admiration for Mr. Wolfram and hadn't realized what a great resource was available on the web.
Your question could be interpreted this way: What is the difference between the sets A = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
Well, it could be interpreted that way, but I was thinking more along the lines of either of them being an equivalent task worthy of Sisyphus in that there would be no practical (there's that word again) difference between counting by ones or tens if the task could never be completed and lasted for all eternity. I mean the difference is clear and it's easy to see that one is a subset of the other but when it comes down to the actual counting.....
That fleshes it out a bit more for me. Thanks.
So what is the practical difference between a countable set and an uncountable set if both take an infinite amount of time to count? Given an infinite supply would it matter if you counted by ones or by tens? How would this differ?
if you're interested in this kind of stuff...
I find it funny that somebody saying, "What the heck does that mean?" is an expression of interest...
Although, it is a request for more information. Hmmmm.
What I meant was that the term "indenumerably infinite" sounds redundantly redundant.
I am not a mathematition
Dang. No good in math OR spelling?
He doesn't actually find one of these numbers, of which there are an indenumerably infinite supply...
What the heck does that mean?
You may have to start all over but that's not the same as not being able to play anymore period.
Unless of course you're into reincarnation.....
I think this particular aspect is completely overridden by the prevalence of respawning or save/reload.
Yep. If you wanted to drive home the message of mortality you'd disable the game so it couldn't be played any more. Of course your sales would probably drop. Oh, and you should also make it so that sometimes when you come back to the game it tells you you were killed in your sleep and not let you play any more.
When you're presenting an animated or toon-ish character, you're mind easily accepts it because you understand it's a parody of a real object.
When presented with life-like objects, you're mind is trying to accept them, not as parody, but as the real thing.
Bingo. I accepted the characters in "Shrek 2" but was really bothered by the CGI wolves in "The Day After Tomorrow".
Ack! "as far as creep factor goes"
...are very realistic paintings of people creepy? (and paintings as realistic as photographs *do* exist) no! why? because they're *realistic*.
Actually they're not realistic. They're photo-realistic. The difference, as far as creep factor oges, would be that we don't expect photographs to move or talk get disgusted and walk out of the room. Some paintings, even if they're not quite photorealistic, can be creepy. For instance if the eyes appear to move in order to follow you. I once saw a pencil sketch of a face with closed eyes and if you concentrated on it the eyes seemed to flash open suddenly. Everyone who saw it seemed to think that was creepy.
It's OK. You can tell me. It'll just be between the two of us....
...FreeBSD developer Greg Lehey who recommends 'that the best thing for IBM to do would be to print out every single version as requested and send the resultant 20 tonnes or so of paper to SCO. That would keep them quiet for a while'.
Or better yet, fax it to them via a bank of fax modems and let them pay for the paper...
...this person smarter then I am.
Cheer up. You're equally smart as neither one of you knows the difference between "then" and "than".
The best quote from the parody: Brown isn't the only one to dispute the study; I myself have sided against myself.
I've just got my starter set of filters, though, including a flourescent light filter, but I haven't had a change to try it out.
...even pushing the button on the camera can cause problems if you're not careful.
White balance should correct for that without a filter.
Try pushing the button halfway down until all the auto-stuff locks in and then finish with a slow squeeze of the button (just like shooting with firearms) rather than a quick punch of the button to grab the action.
Another problem is that people use the screen on the back of the camera and hold it out in front of them rather than bracing it against their face and their arms braced against their body.
Is that the mode where you hand the camera to someone nearby and say, "Here, I'm too stupid to use this."
Get a weirdly-exposed picture (fine, I can live with that), but also get outrageous graininess in the background because the camera decided to go to ISO400 as a "favor". Thanks for nothing...
Get a camera that allows you more lattitude with regard to what it can make decisions on and what it can't. I've got mine set for 100ISO all the time (unless I want to change it).
If your way gave "better" results then there would be no need for the skilled guy. Some people can take a multitude of pictures and all of them will be bad. No matter how technically accurate your pictures are, that doesn't make them "good". There is a lot to be said for composition and sometimes the resultant image doesn't accurately convey the scene but is still a good picture.
Seems to me that you're fixated on one type of subject matter (hot babes) and it could be that the salivation and shaking are affecting enough of your shots that only one in ten is any good. Try taking landscapes (a type of photography where the photographer takes far fewer exposures than someone shooting people) and see if you're steady and composed enough to get a better ratio.
Yep. BofA is really ticking me off lately. My wife had a couple of checks from an individual that she deposited but they didn't clear. Now BofA holds checks from individuals for weeks at a time before crediting the funds. We called them one time and the checks had cleared a week earlier and still weren't credited to the account. They also hold cash if it accompanies personal checks. We're moving to Bank One this weekend. I have a small account with them and they treat me like I'm actually a valued customer! Imagine that!
Since they both make Macs.
There's lots of veggie burgers out there that taste great, but McDonalds had to make one that could never compete in taste with their real meat patties.
Surely you jest. How many people in the focus group said, "Can you make it taste like your horse meat?"