The infinite number of petes best
From MonkeyFilter Wiki
(a.k.a. petebest accidentally deleted his first account, and then created several others trying to get his name how he liked it again, and was ribbed mercilessly for it.)
The plural form of "pete_best" is "petes_best", for comedic if entirely ungrammatical reasons. The reasons why a plural form is actually required are set out in this thread.
However, while a finite number of petes_best have been identified (e.g. here and here), a precise numerical understanding of the set of all petes_best has eluded mathematicians throughout the centuries.
In ancient times, Euclid stated that there were an infinite number of petes_best, in the following terms:
Take a finite number of petes_best, which we assume to be all existing petes_best. Multiply them all together and add user number one, i.e. tracicle. The resultant collective will produce a user that is not divisable by any of the previous petes_best (as dividing by any of these would give a remainder of tracicle). Therefore it must either be pete_best itself, or be divisible by some other pete_best we did not include in the original set of petes_best - and, hence, the set we started with was not in fact all petes_best. This holds for any such finite set: thus there are an infinite number of petes_best.
However, in 1874 Georg Cantor argued that while the set of petes_best was infinite, it was also uncountable - that is, it could not be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of natural numbers. This argument was challenged on the grounds that it was obviously stupid, however it was accepted (e.g. by Hilbert) when a diagonalization argument showed how petes_best could be so thinly sliced that they could cover an infinite amount of pizza.
Today, mathematicians are developing new ways to deal with the recently-discovered infinitesimal petes_best: those petes_best contained within an infinite number of "small" tags. Some even hope to provide a solution to Zeno's age-old paradox about pete_best - that it is impossible for pete_best to comment in any thread, as first he would have to get off the couch, then cross the room, then turn on his computer - oh, it's all too much I'm tired even talking about it.
An infinite number of petes_best at an infinite number of keyboards would eventually duplicate all the works of beeswacky. Probably rather quickly since pete_best has a tendency toward plagiarism.
