On Sunday, 23 February 2014 15:30:52 UTC+2, Moron-Of-Oz wrote: > >> Surely saying all rooms are occupied > >> is equivalent to Saying there is no room that is unoccupied > >> In either case, there would be no need for a 'last room'.
There is no surely in mathematics you fucking moron. Surely, does not constitute proof. Making an assumption all rooms are occupied does not mean it is true.
> He who? > It depends on whether there are enough guests for each room.
Ha, ha! You monkey!
> If there is a one-to-one mapping of guests to rooms, then it IS the case > that all the rooms are occupied.
You can say nothing at any time about "all the rooms". You can talk about n rooms. Not all the rooms.
> > No last room => all rooms not occupied. > No .. it doesn't imply that at all.
Yes, it does imply that. It's a fucked up argument by a moron (Hilbert) and his moron followers - YOU!
> Why would all of the room be unoccupied? Or did you mean to say 'not > all rooms occupied'? In which case it depends on the set of guests.
OMG: You are infinitely stupid.
> If there is no unoccupied room (the hotel is 'full') then there IS a > one-to-one mapping of guests to rooms. Both sets are 'infinite'.
> I didn't say that at all. If you're going to criticise, as least > criticise what I said, and not your own inventions of what you imagine I > said.
You said it moron. In fact, half the time trolls like you don't know what they are saying. You are a troll. Everyone on this forum knows you are a nobody. I am real. My name is John Gabriel. What's your real name troll?