# Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

(→So the last will be first, and the first last: Could you please quote one philosopher or logician of His time who was baffled be Matthew 20:16 (or Mark 10:31 or Luke 13:30)?) |
|||

Line 35: | Line 35: | ||

Could you please quote one philosopher or logician of His time who was baffled be Matthew 20:16 (or Mark 10:31 or Luke 13:30)? Especially as Matthew writes ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι and not εἰσιν οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτο? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (EDT) | Could you please quote one philosopher or logician of His time who was baffled be Matthew 20:16 (or Mark 10:31 or Luke 13:30)? Especially as Matthew writes ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι and not εἰσιν οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτο? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (EDT) | ||

+ | |||

+ | :Many critics of the [[Bible]] were probably baffled by it. Don't have quotes handy, but perhaps some can be found on [[atheism|atheist]] websites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (EDT) | ||

== MPR deletion == | == MPR deletion == |

## Revision as of 14:03, 17 June 2019

## Contents

## Deletion request

Hello Andy, would you please delete these two redirects: [1][2] They give way too much recognition to a leftist website created to vandalize CP and which slanders CP editors. --1990'sguy (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

- Done as requested!--Andy Schlafly (
**talk**) 09:15, 16 April 2019 (EDT)

## Miley Cyrus photo

Hello Andy, do you think it's inappropriate to include this photo on the Miley Cyrus page? File:Miley Cyrus.jpg I don't have much of a problem with it, but DouglasA disagrees. --1990'sguy (talk)

- I'm OK with it.--Andy Schlafly (
**talk**) 14:23, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

## MPR suggestion

This struck me as a very Conservapedia type of story: "'In God We Trust' will remain on US currency as Supreme Court declines atheist challenge." PeterKa (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2019 (EDT)

## So the last will be first, and the first last

Could you please explain this concept in the language of set theory? What *is* the paradox, and how is it resolved by set theory? Thanks. --AugustO (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2019 (EDT)

- The paradox is obvious. In number theory and virtually every other system of logic, the last cannot be the first. But in set theory it can.--Andy Schlafly (
**talk**) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (EDT)- I take the bait: how can the last be the first in set theory? --AugustO (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2019 (EDT)
- Thanks for archiving. Enumeration of elements of a set is up to the intelligent designer. This is how Georg Cantor proved that the set of real numbers is larger than the infinite set of rational numbers. But you're in good company if you resist his way of looking at things. Many great mathematicians of his time thought (incorrectly) that he was some kind of charlatan.--Andy Schlafly (
**talk**) 20:44, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

- Thanks for archiving. Enumeration of elements of a set is up to the intelligent designer. This is how Georg Cantor proved that the set of real numbers is larger than the infinite set of rational numbers. But you're in good company if you resist his way of looking at things. Many great mathematicians of his time thought (incorrectly) that he was some kind of charlatan.--Andy Schlafly (

- I take the bait: how can the last be the first in set theory? --AugustO (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

Georg Cantor's great breakthrough ("Cantor diagonalization") was not in showing that the rationals are countable—that is a fairly straightforward construction—but in using that fact to show that the reals are not countable. There are many ways to specify the correspondence between a given denumerable (countable) set and the natural numbers. In fact, there are a uncountably infinite number of ways to set up the correspondence. Whether any of these constitute "intelligent design" is not for me to say, except that I think that term gets overused in certain quarters.

Then there's the matter of a "well ordering". A "well order" on a set is an order such that any subset has a least element. So a set with a "well order" is sort of like the positive integers—any subset of the positive integers, even an infinite subset, has a least element. (Note that the full set of integers, or the rationals, or the reals, are *not* well-ordered by their normal arithmetical order.) But it is a theorem of ZFC logic that any set has a well-order.

Does the well-ordering theorem constitute intelligent design? That's not for me to say. Does it disprove the Cantor diagonalization theorem? No. The well-order on the reals necessarily uses the Axiom of Choice, and cannot be constructed. Cantor diagonalization *can* be constructed.

Getting back down to Earth, sets can have different orders—the natural numbers from 1 to 100 can have an increasing order and a decreasing order (and 100 factorial other orders too.) With that notion, "the last" under one order "will be first" under the other order. But this is completely obvious under any system of logic, including set theory. But claiming that it's true for the *same* set with the *same* order is simply nonsensical.

- But I'm in good company if I resist your way of looking at things in this manner. I'm sure AugustO is also.

SamHB (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

- "sets can have different orders" - precisely. But the number line does not. What Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time, but perfectly logical once Georg Cantor overcame intense opposition and developed the breakthrough of set theory. If Cantor's opponents had recognized the Bible as a book of logic with an open mind, then they would not have mistakenly opposed Cantor so much. Ditto for Thomas Paine.--Andy Schlafly (
**talk**) 00:47, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

- "sets can have different orders" - precisely. But the number line does not. What Jesus taught was nonsensical to logicians and philosophers of his time, but perfectly logical once Georg Cantor overcame intense opposition and developed the breakthrough of set theory. If Cantor's opponents had recognized the Bible as a book of logic with an open mind, then they would not have mistakenly opposed Cantor so much. Ditto for Thomas Paine.--Andy Schlafly (

Could you please quote one philosopher or logician of His time who was baffled be Matthew 20:16 (or Mark 10:31 or Luke 13:30)? Especially as Matthew writes ἔσονται οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτοι and not εἰσιν οἱ ἔσχατοι πρῶτο? --AugustO (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

- Many critics of the Bible were probably baffled by it. Don't have quotes handy, but perhaps some can be found on atheist websites.--Andy Schlafly (
**talk**) 15:03, 17 June 2019 (EDT)

## MPR deletion

Hello Andy, would you please restore the massive amount of information accidentally deleted in this edit on Template:Mainpageright? (scroll down a bit): [3] I also sent you an email about this. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2019 (EDT)

- Thanks, I thought I restored it already. It seems to have the proper link at the bottom.--Andy Schlafly (
**talk**) 18:30, 15 June 2019 (EDT)