Re: Infinity is not that big!
From: Jesse F. Hughes (jesse_at_phiwumbda.org)
Date: 10/29/04
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Previous message: HERC777: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- In reply to: Abraham Buckingham: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Next in thread: David W. Cantrell: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Reply: David W. Cantrell: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:43:16 +0200
twizlewink@hotmail.com (Abraham Buckingham) writes:
> herc777@hotmail.com (HERC777) wrote in message news:<d8422d00.0410281515.4c290ad2@posting.google.com>...
>> oo is not a number
>
> [snip]
>
>> if infinity was a number then oo = 0
> [snip]
>
> Also note that if infinity was a number lions would fall from the sky,
> and moon pies would be movie critics. Start with a contradiction, and
> you can prove anything.
The claim that infinity is a number is contradictory only given his
other claim that infinity is not a number.
Without some hint of what one means by infinity and number, neither
claim is meaningful.
-- Meaningless movies on the screen behind the band that's blowing Waterboys, throwing shapes "My Love is My Rock Half of the music is on tape in the Weary Land"
- Next message: Jesse F. Hughes: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Previous message: HERC777: "Re: The Road with no Branches argument"
- In reply to: Abraham Buckingham: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Next in thread: David W. Cantrell: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Reply: David W. Cantrell: "Re: Infinity is not that big!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|