John Gabriel <email@example.com> wrote in news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
> On Monday, 24 February 2014 13:23:41 UTC+2, Wizard-Of-Oz wrote: > > Troll: It is poor because it is eaily refuted. Room 0 can be empty > and all rooms after full, and the defintiion will fail. > > JG: That's not what his definition said. Here it is again because > trolls don't even try to comprehend what they read: > > If, for all n, room n+1 is occupied already, the hotel is just full > and no more guests can be accommodated.
If we assume numbers starting from 0, then the hotel is 'just full' even it room 0 is empty
Try to think here
> Julio does not mean that any of the rooms before n+1 are empty.
But they can be .. his definition does not preclude that. A hotel where there is an empty room can hardly be described sensibly as full, yet his definition allows for that.
That makes it a poor definition
> But > the local troll misinterpreted just as he misinterprets the most basic > statements.
No misinterpretation by me.
> Troll: Better would at least be that the hotel is fully occupied if > for all rooms r, room r is occupied > > It is poor for the same reason <snip> more crappola > > JG: Troll forgot that he said: "Better would at least be that the > hotel is fully occupied if for all rooms r, room r is occupied"
Why would I forget my improvment on his defintion?
> This is hilarious. It just keeps getting better! Ha, ha!
I take it you're laughing at yourself
> Troll: No .. I was simply acknowledging that he is right that you > cannot have things he defined being true > > JG: He is so confused at this stage, that he no longer knows whether > his opponent is correct or not. :-)
Why do you think Julio is my opponent?
And no, I am not confused at all. Though you do show that you cannot comprehend what is being said.
> Troll: There is nothing to refute, it is simply a poor definition > > JG: Troll fails to realise that deductions based on poor definitions > will end up being refuted. Troll actually misses the entire point of > that paragraph.
If he had made any deductions worth refuting.
> Troll: I guess the truth does that to trolls like you > > JG: Poor troll thinks that's a "refutation" of sorts. Too funny!
No .. its just pointing out that you are a troll, and the truth aggitates trolls like you
> Troll: And yes, every guest can be accomodated that way > > JG: Troll cannot distinguish between assertion and fact. Troll has no > idea what constitutes an argument.
Poor trool JG thinks that's a refutation.
> Troll: Spelling is irrelevant > > JG: All trolls think that spelling is not longer important.
> Troll: You really have problem reading. The point is that every guest > can be accomodated AND there are still gaps between rooms > > JG: Troll repeats his incorrect assertions and fancies that he has put > forth yet another blockbuster argument! :-)
My assertion is correct.
I showed the mapping.
It maps each guest to a unique room
And it leaves rooms unoccupied
Therefore my claim is correct
And further I am pointing out that you misrepresented what I had said.
> Troll: Moron > > JG: Troll decides to insult as he has run out of little "gems" known > as platitudes.
Just following your lead
> Troll: Yes. that's what I meant > > JG: So troll writes things he does not mean and expects others to know > what he means. Hilarious!
Clearly you DID know what I meant.
> Troll: They are what you lack. > > JG: Yet another non-refutation.
It wasn't a refutation, it was an insult
> Troll: You also lack an ability to comprehend. > > JG: Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If only trolls knew > that! Ha, ha! > > Troll: How sad, little troll. > > JG: And for good measure, another insult. Hee, hee!
You deserve more insults than there is room to post. Ono would need an infinite hotel to accomodate them all.
So .. you've said NOTHING AT ALL to refute any of what I was saying. You only posted insults and nothing more