The universe?
- Thread starter god-of-course
- Start date
AndersHermansson
Registered Senior Member
Behaviour that is encouraged is strengthened. Maybe you're right that ignoring would be the best
Disagree with both:
the higest number imaginable (in decimal system) is periodic 999999...infinitely long. Any other number, you can think of - incl. any math manipulations with 9999...., would be smaller when compared to it.
99999999....=infinity (you cannot get higher than that.)
There's a saying from usenet that is valid here;
<font face=+2>Don't feed the trolls</font>
Trolls like Leeaus feed on the replies they get. They will say anything that elicits a response knowing they got a rise.
This thread has the macabre fascination like watching a train crash. No amount of debate or argument will shift the point of view of the fuckwit. The most eloquent and logical arguments from our best minds will never shift the idiots point of view but rather feed their desire to get more responses. Let it be, please. lock the thread, ban the idiot or whatever it takes.
<a href="http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg">Leeaus seeks enlightenment from the muses</a>
Re: RE malkiri
And at everyone's suggestion, I'll stop feeding the troll.
I'm asking for an actual, concrete number. The point I'm trying to make is that you can't come up with one, and it makes no sense to ask for one. Trying to evaluate that expression doesn't get you anywhere.
And at everyone's suggestion, I'll stop feeding the troll.
Hello Geodesic
Irrational number. one that cannot be written as a fraction a/b with a and b integers and b not zero.
That is a definition off the web. What was meant was that.
How you would get a rational number out of what was written is between you and your self.
Why would all vector quantities have a value of 1. Distance is not a vetor quantity.
The ratio of circumference to a radius is an irrational number.
A ratio is not distance or a measure of distance.
The key point that you raise is that the ratio is a finite number.
An infinite radius by a finite number would equal an infinite circumference in your rules.
If one circumference is infinite, though, all are infinite as all circumferences have no beginning or end.
finite radius x finite ratio = infinite circumference.
also infinite radius x finite ratio = infinite circumference.
Proof that there is no such thing as infinite distance once again.
Just as happy as anyone else if this thread ends.
That proof of JRs was so weak.
Regards
leeaus
Irrational number. one that cannot be written as a fraction a/b with a and b integers and b not zero.
That is a definition off the web. What was meant was that.
How you would get a rational number out of what was written is between you and your self.
Why would all vector quantities have a value of 1. Distance is not a vetor quantity.
The ratio of circumference to a radius is an irrational number.
A ratio is not distance or a measure of distance.
The key point that you raise is that the ratio is a finite number.
An infinite radius by a finite number would equal an infinite circumference in your rules.
If one circumference is infinite, though, all are infinite as all circumferences have no beginning or end.
finite radius x finite ratio = infinite circumference.
also infinite radius x finite ratio = infinite circumference.
Proof that there is no such thing as infinite distance once again.
Just as happy as anyone else if this thread ends.
That proof of JRs was so weak.
Regards
leeaus
No! keep it up, all of you, i created this thread and i will not see it die.
That's the spirit.
THIS POST, FOREVER!
Just putting in my 2 cents.
Mathematicians are still arguing with the definition of infinity.
So any theories or ideas that make statements using infinity should also give a definition of infinity used in their statement.
My personal definition is that infinity is an absurbity, that is, it can be stated but not processed.
Therefore you can't add 1 to infinity because that is a process.
You cant say there is an infinite amount of mass in an infinite universe because a process can be applied ie infinity-infinity=infinity
the set of whole numbers goes from 1 to a very large number, it can't be infinity because you would have an infinite subset of an infinite set.
Anyway enough druelling.
I don't post much, my mouse arm always has cramp for some reason.
Mathematicians are still arguing with the definition of infinity.
So any theories or ideas that make statements using infinity should also give a definition of infinity used in their statement.
My personal definition is that infinity is an absurbity, that is, it can be stated but not processed.
Therefore you can't add 1 to infinity because that is a process.
You cant say there is an infinite amount of mass in an infinite universe because a process can be applied ie infinity-infinity=infinity
the set of whole numbers goes from 1 to a very large number, it can't be infinity because you would have an infinite subset of an infinite set.
Anyway enough druelling.
I don't post much, my mouse arm always has cramp for some reason.
Luckily, I only promised I wouldn't feed any trolls.Originally posted by 1100f
I promised myself that I woill not post anymore in thi thread, so even this answer will not be posted.
OOPS, it's too late, I have allready pressed the "Submit Reply" button
Hey, your 3 smilies are keeping me from adding my own...
Hello Kadudeus
Altough more concerned about the impossibility of infinite distance, can only agree with your perspective.
Little do mathematicians realize that any closed shape is finite in size. It has no ends open.
So, if the three dimensions co-exist, space is finite. So simple when you see it.
Bad luck to those not able to put the finishing touches on explanations of what infinite distance is.
Regards
leeaus
Altough more concerned about the impossibility of infinite distance, can only agree with your perspective.
Little do mathematicians realize that any closed shape is finite in size. It has no ends open.
So, if the three dimensions co-exist, space is finite. So simple when you see it.
Bad luck to those not able to put the finishing touches on explanations of what infinite distance is.
Regards
leeaus
Thanks Leeaus, correction accepted, I was confusing distance with displacement
However, in that case, distance is a scalar quantity ie. dimensionless, so how can numbers, which are also scalar be different?
That was my whole point, in that you cannot continue to define all lengths as 1 when you are comparing them. You're obviously not an engineer (or a scientist)
By your argument, and my agreement, ratios and distances are scalars, and thus can be compared.
Correction: it was you that started the whole rational number thing. Talk about self delusion...
Anyway, no more arguments about rationals... I'm having more fun than banging my head against a wall...
Correct...
All circumferences have ends, where they are cut by a radius, any radius. If you want to spend the rest of your life measuring round and round a circle... This argument is bizzare anyway - because 1 circumference is infinite, all circumferences are infinite? I don't think so.
Because I know an intelligent person, all people I know are intelligent: obviously false (case in point).
I think what leeaus is trying to argue, in his irrational and infuriatingly annoying fashion, is a metaphysical point that has little to do with mathematics.
However isn't his conclusion (when argued rationally) very close to Brouwer's 'intuitionism'. In this view proofs by contradiction fail because the law of the excluded middle is rejected, and the existence of a thing cannot be proved by proving its non-existence to be impossible. Intuitionism is also a semi-metaphysical position since it slightly redefines existence.
I don't know the technicalities but I remembered this from Penrose's 'Emperor's New Mind'. Is intuitionism a way of actually arming the troll with a reasonable argument?
However isn't his conclusion (when argued rationally) very close to Brouwer's 'intuitionism'. In this view proofs by contradiction fail because the law of the excluded middle is rejected, and the existence of a thing cannot be proved by proving its non-existence to be impossible. Intuitionism is also a semi-metaphysical position since it slightly redefines existence.
I don't know the technicalities but I remembered this from Penrose's 'Emperor's New Mind'. Is intuitionism a way of actually arming the troll with a reasonable argument?
Last edited:
Hello Geodesic
The mid point of your post. You say that leeaus started the whole irrational number thing. Not true. JR inquired as to what leeaus believed an irrational number to be.
A problem with threads can be interpretations placed upon responses to questions of others that are then taken out of that context.
A scalar quantity is not dimensionless in terms of basic qualities.
Time, mass and distance are all scalar quantities. A vector quantity is one that requires direction to be specified. EG force or momentum.
Not defining all lengths as 1. Saying that units of length are immaterial to any proof of infinite length. Finite length is one unit of length. You can have a unit of finite length as long or as short as you want but it will be finite.
Once again the cross answering can get confused, someone else will interpret this differently but the longest finite length is one unit of finite length. JR said that if this unit is a line, the line is actually infinite as a portion of the unit plus the unit must be on the line. That has been shown to be wrong on this thread from various angles.
Where you move into a circumference being cut by a radius, wrong by your own argument. The ratio of a circumference to a radius is irrational. Thus where can they be said to intersect.
The only way a radius has an exact relationship with a circumference is with an allowance that both ends of radius scribe circles, one bigger one smaller.
The point of all circumferences being infinite is relativity. A hula hoop a billion times larger than the width of the universe or a hula hoop a child has fun with, geometrically the only thing that differentiates one from the other is the other.
Which of these two hoops is infinite, which isn’t. The errant mathematician answer is neither. Whatever the radius of a circle though, the circle will be finite courtesy of being a closed shaped.
Regards
leeaus
The mid point of your post. You say that leeaus started the whole irrational number thing. Not true. JR inquired as to what leeaus believed an irrational number to be.
A problem with threads can be interpretations placed upon responses to questions of others that are then taken out of that context.
A scalar quantity is not dimensionless in terms of basic qualities.
Time, mass and distance are all scalar quantities. A vector quantity is one that requires direction to be specified. EG force or momentum.
Not defining all lengths as 1. Saying that units of length are immaterial to any proof of infinite length. Finite length is one unit of length. You can have a unit of finite length as long or as short as you want but it will be finite.
Once again the cross answering can get confused, someone else will interpret this differently but the longest finite length is one unit of finite length. JR said that if this unit is a line, the line is actually infinite as a portion of the unit plus the unit must be on the line. That has been shown to be wrong on this thread from various angles.
Where you move into a circumference being cut by a radius, wrong by your own argument. The ratio of a circumference to a radius is irrational. Thus where can they be said to intersect.
The only way a radius has an exact relationship with a circumference is with an allowance that both ends of radius scribe circles, one bigger one smaller.
The point of all circumferences being infinite is relativity. A hula hoop a billion times larger than the width of the universe or a hula hoop a child has fun with, geometrically the only thing that differentiates one from the other is the other.
Which of these two hoops is infinite, which isn’t. The errant mathematician answer is neither. Whatever the radius of a circle though, the circle will be finite courtesy of being a closed shaped.
Regards
leeaus