Why Evolutiontheory is just a theory and not an Evidence

[ScimitarXEdge]

so each question Al Hanif has got wrong

Afghanistan got his chemistry question wrong and even confused Isotope with Isomer hahahaha


these guys are both fakes and uneducated losers

[Al Hanif]

your case would not apply because there is no general formula.

I never said there was a general formula. I said that

an Irrational raised to an Irrational can be Rational ?

by definition of open set E (epsilon) is a neighborhood

A number is a neighborhood ?

in an Open set Xi, around x which is an element of Xi, if x exists in Xi,

You prove that something exists after using it ?

then the neighborhood of x

No verb ?

epsilon exists i Xi

i ?

and thus the Union Xi, i=1--> Infinity contains Epilson and therefore the Infinite Union of an Open set is open.

An union of sets contains a number ?


LOL

[Al Hanif]

remember I asked prove there an Irrational raised to an irrational is rational, NOT ALL irrationals raised to a irrational

NO. What you asked was :

prove that the an Irrational raise to an irrational is rational :p

Learn to speak english. You don't even ask your questions correctly.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I never said there was a general formula. I said that

You have an N^N, which is wrong, because you have to restrict N, you gave a general N.

A number is a neighborhood ?

A Neighborhood is a distance, sometimes range surrounding a number which contains values within that range, if those range of value exist in the set, then the set is open. You could have used Epsilon Ball, I'd have accepted that but your explanation was non-explicit

which means you did not learn this stuff except 10 minutes ago by web searching. Precision is important in Mathematics.

You prove that something exists after using it ?

It's the basis of the proof , you have to use definition of open set.


No verb ?




i ?

An union of sets contains a number ?

Union of sets contains epsilon, you can almost think of it as subset

[ScimitarXEdge]

NO. What you asked was :



Learn to speak english. You don't even ask your questions correctly.

yes "an" is just ONE ...not all, you should learn English in the first place

[Al Hanif]

You have an N^N, which is wrong, because you have to restrict N, you gave a general N.

No, I said that N was a square root of a non-squared number. N is not general.

A Neighborhood is a distance, sometimes range surrounding a number which contains values within that range, if those range of value exist in the set, then the set is open. You could have used Epsilon Ball, I'd have accepted that but your explanation was non-explicit

Bull****. I don't know what you're talking about. Neighborhoods are not numbers but mathematical objects in a topolgical space. The neighborhood of a point is a set, not a number.

It's the basis of the proof , you have to use definition of open set.

That's completely false. Your proof is false.

Union of sets contains epsilon, you can almost think of it as subset

An union of sets contain a number ?

You can't even spell correctly. Learn to speak english

[ScimitarXEdge]

No, I said that N was a square root of a non-squared number. N is not general.

Which is still wrong, because you can't use any general square root of a non squared number and get the same result, for example Sqrt (3).

Your definition was too general; hence wrong!!!!

Bull****. I don't know what you're talking about. Neighborhoods are not numbers but mathematical objects in a topolgical space. The neighborhood of a point is a set, not a number.

yeah dumb dumb I never said it's a number, I said it's a distance, a range which is a set., it's a subset

remember my remark

A Neighborhood is a distance, sometimes range surrounding a number which contains values within that range, if those range of value exist in the set, then the set is open. You could have used Epsilon Ball, I'd have accepted that but your explanation was non-explicit

That's completely false. Your proof is false.

Prove why it's wrong then, I proved why yours is wrong

An union of sets contain a number ?

You can't even spell correctly. Learn to speak english

The Union of sets contains an ELEMENT< it doesn't have to be a number, were not doing Real Analysis here, it can be, and that element is contained within an Epsilon, which itself is contained within the set, which proves the Union of sets is open.

Stop making a fool of yourself

you're not a mathematician, Mister "It's Just a Theory" hahahaha

[Al Hanif]

yeah dumb dumb I never said it's a number, I said it's a distance, a range which is a set., it's a subset

a distance is not a set hahaha

Prove why it's wrong then, I proved why yours is wrong

I already did. Your demonstration is false because you don't even understand the difference between a number, a distance and a set.


Also you can't even speak english correctly, no wonder why I didn't understand your question.

[ozymandias]

a distance is not a set hahaha

Native English speaker here -- a range is most definitely a set, it is just not portrayed in standard notation. There is nothing mathematically incorrect stating the set {1,2,3,4,5} and saying the set of natural numbers between 1 and 5, inclusive, which is a range. It's not the preferred notation, but it is common to refer to sets as ranges. Every math professor I have ever had has used this short hand at some time.

I already did. Your demonstration is false because you don't even understand the difference between a number, a distance and a set.

Evidently you have translation errors, and need to take a deep breath and come at this issue a little less antagonistically.

Also you can't even speak english correctly, no wonder why I didn't understand your question.

You seem to have similar issues.

[ScimitarXEdge]

[B]a distance is not a set hahaha

a distance can definitely be a set ...for example a distance between A and B can contain a number C, D, and E, which makes it set. Distance can be described of as a range.

I already did. Your demonstration is false because you don't even understand the difference between a number, a distance and a set.

Nah you just cried and shunned it; this isn't a proof or disproof of anthing. LOL

Also you can't even speak english correctly, no wonder why I didn't understand your question.

Even other English speakers like Ozymandias understood me fine.

[ozymandias]

a distance can definitely be a set ...for example a distance between A and B can contain a number C, D, and E, which makes it set. Distance can be described of as a range.



Nah you just cried and shunned it; this isn't a proof or disproof of anthing. LOL



Even other English speakers like Ozymandias understood me fine.

To be fair, a native speaker is likely to have an advantage understanding you over a non-native speaker.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You seem to have similar issues.

exactly

look at this dimwit ...case and point

MOAR QUESTIONS !!!

he can't even spell a basic word like MORE

[Al Hanif]

Native English speaker here -- a range is most definitely a set, it is just not portrayed in standard notation.

He added the word range after he made his mistake. A distance is definitely not a set.


A metric on a set X is a function (called the distance function or simply distance)
d : X × X → R
(where R is the set of real numbers). For all x, y, z in X, this function is required to satisfy the following conditions:
d(x, y) ≥ 0 (non-negativity)
d(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y (identity of indiscernibles. Note that condition 1 and 2 together produce positive definiteness)
d(x, y) = d(y, x) (symmetry)
d(x, z) ≤ d(x, y) + d(y, z) (subadditivity / triangle inequality).

Evidently you have translation errors, and need to take a deep breath and come at this issue a little less antagonistically.

Yeah, yeah don't take me as if I was a fool. He said that a distance is a set which it is not, even in English. And he couldn't even spell correctly his question twice.

prove that the an Irrational raise to an irrational is rational :p

remember I asked prove there an Irrational raised to an irrational is rational, NOT ALL irrationals raised to a irrational

Learn to speak english, learn what is a set and what is a distance and then talk to me.

[ozymandias]

exactly

look at this dimwit ...case and point




he can't even spell a basic word like MORE

Actually, "MOAR" is a meme -- an internet joke.

[ozymandias]

He added the word range after he made his mistake. A distance is definitely not a set.

How can this be? You *QUOTED* the word 'range'. Even if he added it later, you should reply to what you quoted, not what he may have had prior to editing.

A metric on a set X is a function (called the distance function or simply distance)
d : X × X → R
(where R is the set of real numbers). For all x, y, z in X, this function is required to satisfy the following conditions:
d(x, y) ≥ 0 (non-negativity)
d(x, y) = 0 if and only if x = y (identity of indiscernibles. Note that condition 1 and 2 together produce positive definiteness)
d(x, y) = d(y, x) (symmetry)
d(x, z) ≤ d(x, y) + d(y, z) (subadditivity / triangle inequality).



Yeah, yeah don't take me as if I was a fool. He said that a distance is a set which it is not, even in English. And he couldn't even spell correctly his question twice.

Once again, you quoted him saying 'range'.

Learn to speak english, learn what is a set and what is a distance and then talk to me.

Learn to capitalize 'English', spell correctly, and use proper grammar, and then talk about others needing to learn English.


You guys really need to grow up, drop the personal attacks and act like adults. I am starting to feel embarrassed for the both of you, bickering like little kids.