I will not contradict myself.

The original question: "9. Assuming that you and I are equally fast at all fundamental operations: is it possible for you to write answers that follow the rules and have no contradictions in the same amount of time that it takes me to find any rule breaks/contradictions by you, assuming that I am trying to optimize my speed? " Pro has asserted that it is possible; for this assertion, he must know that P=NP. Pro is trying to bend the meaning of the original statement. "However, there is a limit to the infinity. " There is no limit to an infinity. This is definitional. "You assume that we're dealing with infinities, when we're really dealing with maximums. " God's power has no maximum. It is infinite. Integers have no maximum, and yet there are more real numbers than integers. " 'Sets contain what we say they contain, and nothing else. ' You never said that. " I don't have to. That's just how set theory works. "Furthermore, [prime distribution] isn't truly random, as there are some patterns . . . " That's not really a pattern. The only "pattern" is that the difference between primes is always even (except with 2). Also, random events still show certain distributions. If you flip a coin, the outcome is random, but you'll still expect to get half heads and half tails. Knowledge about whether the prime number distribution is truly random requires knowing whether the Riemann Hypothesis is true (Music of the Primes by Marcus du Sautoy). Pro is asserting that the Riemann Hypothesis is false. This contradicts #1. By claiming that it does not contradict #1, Pro is claiming to know more about mathematics than the world's greatest number theorists, which is clearly false. "So, the Riemann Hypothesis probably doesn't say that all prime numbers are distributed truly randomly, because then we'd have a multiple of ten as a prime number, but that cannot happen. " That doesn't make any sense . . . It is worth clarifying that just because something is truly random does not mean it can be anything. For example, if you flip a coin, there could be a truly random selection between heads or tails. Pro's assertion is equivalent to the assertion that since a coin cannot land on a three, it is not truly random. However, coins do not land on numbers; they land on heads or tails. But they can still be truly random. ----------- "Entire - Intact" For life to be intact, it must include all aspects, including your email password as well as everything else. The contradiction stands. 1. Scarlet and purple are conflicting. 2. More than one course? Absurd! But really, that one was pretty easy to refute. 3. I'm not sure I understand this one. Why should this difference be made if you're a fool or if you're wise? (How do you know which one you are? ) My opponent has cherry-picked these Biblical contradictions. A better one to refute would have been the fact that there are two different creation myths. "I shouldn't answer yes, and I shouldn't answer no, because I don't know the answer. I don't know whether or not I was correct. 'I don't know' is a very simple, but fulfilling explanation. " I do not find it very fulfilling. It seems like it's dodging the question. You could have at least said, "I cannot answer this, as I do not know the answer. " That would have been more clear. "If you had one man count all real numbers, and another count all integers, then neither would ever finish. " True. But the set of reals is still greater than the set of integers. "My opponent does not source Cantor's proof. " Other than my explanation (which may not be very good), I did cite a Wikipedia page a couple of rounds back. "Also, the definition of 'correct': 'conforming to the strict requirements of a specific ideology or set of beliefs or values. ' . http://www.merriam-webster.com......[2] This is the ideology of one sole infinity. "Correct" is really subjective. " This is unsound since it begs the question. Additionally, if that is really Pro's ideology, then he answered incorrectly to numbers 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, since none of those follow from his ideology that there is one sole infinity. (His ideology only has one axiom, which makes it difficult to be correct. ) Also, the ideology or set of beliefs is not that of one sole infinity, since Merriam-Webster has not defined it as such. "Well, I can't be sure now, because I don't have any proofs in any direction of anything. " Pro has misunderstood. He stated "I can't be sure"; this is an assertion that knowledge of the answer to #25 is impossible for him to attain. He cannot know that this knowledge is impossible to attain without proving that it is unprovable (which may sound strange, but can be done). "Here's an idea [for an ideal voting system]: Everybody votes on what they want to be done. Suddenly, everybody has their own alternate dimension in which their vote wins. Therefore, everybody has their own ideal world, from this ideal voting system. " Besides the fact that it has been PROVEN that there is no ideal voting system (see link in previous round, or search Arrow's Impossibility Theorem), I will refute this idea: In each dimension, every single person except one does not get what they want. The voting system is therefore far from ideal. Assuming that there are 100 people, each person doesn't get what they want in 99% of dimensions. " 'Create a list of every positive integer. ' This is impossible. ;)" No it's not. Infinite list. It doesn't have to be practically possible, only theoretically so. The relevant point here is that Cantor proved it, and it's widely accepted that Cantor proved it. He actually has two proofs, but the second proof is far more complicated. ======== REMINDERS -I remind the reader that sources are not important, and the sources vote should be given to whoever you think deserves the arguments vote. -I remind the reader that Pro only has to have contradicted himself one time for me to have won. ======== My opponent has made nowhere short of eleven contradictions.