Concept of infinity?

[Specter_]

Well, the distance between 1 and 2 is 1 (finite), but the possible numbers is infinite. And as long as you don't use infinite as one of the numbers, the distance is always finite.

that's the thing: you're counting in a more defined system than i am. i'm not counting in base 10 real numbers. what you said about the possible numbers is actually what i mean by this.

the point i'm also trying to make here (apart from the claim that i've made) is that you people don't see things from an abstract enough perspective. you still say think a distance is 'where-from, where-to', when in fact a distance does not need end points, or interfere with points at all. i am speaking strictly numeric, yet you try and superimpose it on graphical functions such as a distance function. if anything, this proves that you do not have an understanding of the level of abstraction i am speaking of, and that by defining you're going down in levels of abstractions in favor of comparing objects to something you already know. this leads me to the assumption that you do not grasp the concept of infinity.

So enlighten us. You have not once stated which system you count in.

Or maybe you just pull all the "I think more complex than you and you have no idea what infinity is" out of your arse to show us wrong since you have no other way to "prove your "statement" is right"

An unbounded statement is a general statement, and it is certainly not true that distances are infinity in general, or even in general on the real numbers.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Maze1125]

Infinity is infinite(yeah obvious but you know it's the simple truth)

Read this somewhere - 'If infinite rednecks fired infinite shotguns at infinite roadsigns, then all the great literary works of the world would eventually be created in braille'

Actually, it's more awesome than that.
'If infinite rednecks fired infinite shotguns at infinite road-signs, then all the great literary works of the world would be created in Braille after the very first shot!'

 

[theklng]

So enlighten us. You have not once stated which system you count in.

i already told you what i meant in my first paragraph. i am just saying it doesn't work in a "system". if you go down and define that you're working with numbers then it loses its meaning, much like the concept of infinity does in our world. once you have defined infinity as a value, it is no longer infinite (it is a value).

If you didn't put any boundaries on then you are automatically wrong, due to all the times that distances aren't infinity.
An unbounded statement is a general statement, and it is certainly not true that distances are infinity in general, or even in general on the real numbers.

that's where you are wrong: if there are no definitions then the definitions of distance being something do not exist either. everything i said is completely unhinged by any system, it is a bare minimum and based only on a definition of a number. this way, those times where distance doesn't equal infinity do not exist either. having said that, it means that what you said here

An unbounded statement is a general statement, and it is certainly not true that distances are infinity in general, or even in general on the real numbers.

isn't true. you're making an assumption that an unbound statement is a general statement, unaware of the compromise you're making by defining it as a general statement. you can make a claim (and give any number of concrete proofs) that an unbound statement is a general statement, but by defining it as a general statement you have already made it more concrete than what an unbound system really is:

an unbound system is an unbound system

i do not expect you to understand this. maybe i cannot make myself clear or maybe it is just not said in a way so you can interpret it correctly. it takes an abstract perspective to see this, and it takes the opposite perspective to explain it.

 

[Specter_]

So enlighten us. You have not once stated which system you count in.

i already told you what i meant in my first paragraph. i am just saying it doesn't work in a "system". if you go down and define that you're working with numbers then it loses its meaning, much like the concept of infinity does in our world. once you have defined infinity as a value, it is no longer infinite (it is a value).

So basically you're saying that your statement is true unless you apply it to mathematic systems?

 

[Maze1125]

So enlighten us. You have not once stated which system you count in.

i already told you what i meant in my first paragraph. i am just saying it doesn't work in a "system". if you go down and define that you're working with numbers then it loses its meaning, much like the concept of infinity does in our world. once you have defined infinity as a value, it is no longer infinite (it is a value).

Wow, that was brilliant.
You should do a tour of maths departments around the world, you'd have them all cracking-up.

It was meant to be funny... right?

 

[theklng]

So enlighten us. You have not once stated which system you count in.

i already told you what i meant in my first paragraph. i am just saying it doesn't work in a "system". if you go down and define that you're working with numbers then it loses its meaning, much like the concept of infinity does in our world. once you have defined infinity as a value, it is no longer infinite (it is a value).

So basically you're saying that your statement is true unless you apply it to mathematic systems?

yes, because it is not a mathematical statement, it is a logic statement.

 

[sidhe3141]

I hate philosiphical debates on paradoxes, it get's really annoying and cliche.
SERIOSLY WHY CAN'T BE ACCEPT THAT A WIZARD DID EVERYTHING!

No, as Clevinger clearly demonstrated (too lazy to find out which comic and include a link), a wizard would have done it, but he decided to store White Mage in whatever existed before time, and she created it.

 

[Maze1125]

So enlighten us. You have not once stated which system you count in.

i already told you what i meant in my first paragraph. i am just saying it doesn't work in a "system". if you go down and define that you're working with numbers then it loses its meaning, much like the concept of infinity does in our world. once you have defined infinity as a value, it is no longer infinite (it is a value).

So basically you're saying that your statement is true unless you apply it to mathematic systems?

yes, because it is not a mathematical statement, it is a logic statement.

I agree with the first part of that post...

Anyway, you're claiming your statement is logical.
Then I'd love to see the axioms and definitions you've used to logically deduce it.

 

[theklng]

So enlighten us. You have not once stated which system you count in.

i already told you what i meant in my first paragraph. i am just saying it doesn't work in a "system". if you go down and define that you're working with numbers then it loses its meaning, much like the concept of infinity does in our world. once you have defined infinity as a value, it is no longer infinite (it is a value).

So basically you're saying that your statement is true unless you apply it to mathematic systems?

yes, because it is not a mathematical statement, it is a logic statement.

I agree with the first part of that post...

i never claimed it to be a mathematical statement. the mathematical definition of infinity is a value, which makes it void because infinity does not have a value (a value would be an end point). there you go.

 

[Maze1125]

So enlighten us. You have not once stated which system you count in.

i already told you what i meant in my first paragraph. i am just saying it doesn't work in a "system". if you go down and define that you're working with numbers then it loses its meaning, much like the concept of infinity does in our world. once you have defined infinity as a value, it is no longer infinite (it is a value).

So basically you're saying that your statement is true unless you apply it to mathematic systems?

yes, because it is not a mathematical statement, it is a logic statement.

I agree with the first part of that post...

Anyway, you're claiming your statement is logical.
Then I'd love to see the axioms and definitions you've used to logically deduce it.

i never claimed it to be a mathematical statement. the mathematical definition of infinity is a value, which makes it void because infinity does not have a value (a value would be an end point).

You said it was a logical statement.
And logic relies completely on axioms and deductions, plus full logical format.

So please, tell us the axioms you've been using and show us how you've deduced that statement in logical format.
Which obviously you can do, as you claimed your statement was logical.

Also:

the mathematical definition of infinity is a value,

That is absolutely not true.

 

[theklng]

So please, tell us the axioms you've been using and show us how you've deduced that statement in logical format.
Which obviously you can do, as you claimed your statement was logical.

Also:

the mathematical definition of infinity is a value,

That is absolutely not true.

i already told you what i meant by my statements in previous posts: there is an infinite number of numbers between any two given numbers. here distance is defined as in numbers. i've rephrased it so you could understand it, because you obviously lack some sort of understanding for abstractions.

as for infinity, yes it is defined as an unreachable value in math. look at limits: you move towards infinity (i.e. you move towards a value). that you cannot ever reach that value is irrelevant; it is a still a value.


addendum:
i love the length you're trying to go to disprove this. it really shows that people rely on wanton destruction of a fellow man rather than inspiration and motivation. it shames me to be part of the same species as you. maybe you should take some time out from your busy schedule of forum browsing. i don't really see a point in screening a community for logical proofs and making sure they're foolproof; it's really not doing anyone any favors.

there's a world out there you're missing out on because you have to define the way you live.

 

[Maze1125]

So please, tell us the axioms you've been using and show us how you've deduced that statement in logical format.
Which obviously you can do, as you claimed your statement was logical.

Also:

the mathematical definition of infinity is a value,

That is absolutely not true.

i already told you what i meant by my statements in previous posts: there is an infinite number of numbers between any two given numbers. here distance is defined as in numbers. i've rephrased it so you could understand it, because you obviously lack some sort of understanding for abstractions.

That was your conclusion, and you said it was logical, so you must have derived it through a logical process.
Considering you considered the statement valuable enough to argue over for several posts, you surely consider it valuable enough to give your logical deduction of it.

as for infinity, yes it is defined as an unreachable value in math. look at limits: you move towards infinity (i.e. you move towards a value). that you cannot ever reach that value is irrelevant; it is a still a value.

That is absolutely not how a limit is defined.

i love the length you're trying to go to disprove this. it really shows that people rely on wanton destruction of a fellow man rather than inspiration and motivation. it shames me to be part of the same species as you. maybe you should take some time out from your busy schedule of forum browsing. i don't really see a point in screening a community for logical proofs and making sure they're foolproof; it's really not doing anyone any favors.

there's a world out there you're missing out on because you have to define the way you live.

How am I trying to disprove your claim?
I'm asking for you to give me the logical proof of it so I can understand.
And you're denying me that.

The only possible conclusion (seen as we know you do have a logical proof) is that you don't want to enlighten me and instead revel in the delight of taunting me with this knowledge that you have and I don't.

 

[theklng]

So please, tell us the axioms you've been using and show us how you've deduced that statement in logical format.
Which obviously you can do, as you claimed your statement was logical.

Also:

the mathematical definition of infinity is a value,

That is absolutely not true.

i already told you what i meant by my statements in previous posts: there is an infinite number of numbers between any two given numbers. here distance is defined as in numbers. i've rephrased it so you could understand it, because you obviously lack some sort of understanding for abstractions.

That was your conclusion, and you said it was logical, so you must have derived it through a logical process.
Considering you considered the statement valuable enough to argue over for several posts, you surely consider it valuable enough to give your logical deduction of it.

as for infinity, yes it is defined as an unreachable value in math. look at limits: you move towards infinity (i.e. you move towards a value). that you cannot ever reach that value is irrelevant; it is a still a value.

That is absolutely not how a limit is defined.

i love the length you're trying to go to disprove this. it really shows that people rely on wanton destruction of a fellow man rather than inspiration and motivation. it shames me to be part of the same species as you. maybe you should take some time out from your busy schedule of forum browsing. i don't really see a point in screening a community for logical proofs and making sure they're foolproof; it's really not doing anyone any favors.

there's a world out there you're missing out on because you have to define the way you live.

How am I trying to disprove your claim?
I'm asking for you to give me the logical proof of it so I can understand.
And you're denying me that.

The only possible conclusion (seen as we know you do have a logical proof) is that you don't want to enlighten me and instead revel in the delight of taunting me with this knowledge that you have and I don't.

christ. i gave you my proof as i defined it, as it was derived. what more do you want? do you want me to use the operators used in logic? or perhaps mathematical operators? what exactly can you not see here?

i've tried to reason with you here, i've given you what you asked for, yet you still come wanting something just so you can say you're right. i don't have anything else to give you, my proof is visible in my previous post (the first paragraph). i can give you nothing else.

as for how limits are defined: i wasn't talking about how they are defined, but how you use infinity as a value IN limits.

you seem to have some issues with comprehension which could not be resolved even with my best effort to make you understand. i have nothing else to add here, and will leave the discussions as is. everything you asked for has been provided, i leave it to you to make sense of my proof (which, by the way, is logic). if you can't, then perhaps seek a different sphere of knowledge.

 

[Maze1125]

christ. i gave you my proof as i defined it, as it was derived. what more do you want? do you want me to use the operators used in logic?

Considering that's precisely what I've asked for multiple times... YES, that's what I want.
You said your statement was logical and obviously you wouldn't have said that if it wasn't true.
So please, show us the logical proof you have.

i've tried to reason with you here, i've given you what you asked for,

No you haven't.
You've barely given any kind of rational proof, never-mind a logical one.

as for how limits are defined: i wasn't talking about how they are defined, but how you use infinity as a value IN limits.

And that's the thing.
Limits to infinity have their own definition precisely so we don't use infinity as a number.

you seem to have some issues with comprehension which could not be resolved even with my best effort to make you understand. i have nothing else to add here, and will leave the discussions as is. everything you asked for has been provided, i leave it to you to make sense of my proof (which, by the way, is logic). if you can't, then perhaps seek a different sphere of knowledge.

And of course you leave with an attack on my intellect in an attempt to belittle me and boost yourself.

If you continue with logical fallacies like that I'm going to start thinking you don't even know what a logical argument is, never-mind have one.

 

[Specter_]

Just so you don't think I caved in, I just left it to Maze to prove that theklng pulled his statement out of his arse, since he (maze) obviously has a better grasp on the english terms of mathematics/logic than I do.

Go get him, Maze.

 

[Pimppeter2]

erased

 

[Turtleboy1017]

Time was invented by humanity. Think about it, Humans made the rules of time. Minutes, hours, weeks, years, they don't actually exist. We invented them.

I agree that time is a human created concept, but does that mean it doesn't exist? Time is time... Whereas our world is progressing, the sun sets and the sun rises, we just describe the passage as time because this is the word we have created for it. However, it doesn't mean that time doesn't exist... simply that we have named intervals for it through our system of langauge.

 

[zacaron]

this reminds me of "an unstoppable force meets an Immovable object" sort of thing from the dark knight

 

[Archemetis]

The two lines would open a rift in space time devouring all of humanities achievements past present and future until there is naught left but the prospect of budiling it all up again.

So what do we get from this?
"Don't draw identical lines, it fucks off space and time and they're usually such mellow dudes..."

Why would drawing two exactly indentical lines fuck off space and time?

Because they don't like it when people simplify them to such a basic level of understanding.

They're some majorly complex mofos and that's how they like it.

it'd kinda go like this:

Space: Yo, time, check this shit out, some douchebag is drawing two completely indentical lines...

Time: Oh yeah? did he manage it?

Space: yeah, he did... And now he's explaining the concept of us using the... NO!

Time: What?

Space: Mother--! he used the lines as an example of how WE work!

Time: what?! we're so much more complicated mofos then a bunch of stupid lines!

Space: True dat! Let's rain on this faggots parade!

*it was at that time Space and Time caused the rift that would devour all of man's accomplishment, past, present and future and leave them with naught but the prospect of starting again and building it all back up they left only this message*

"Dear half-wit motherfucks, you liked your precious "Time and space is a line" theory so much we figured we'd take you back to when that shit actually made SENSE, with love
Time and Space."


Do yuo see what i'm getting at?