Re: infinity

David C. Ullrich said:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 10:34:37 -0400, Tony Orlow (aeo6)
> <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >David C. Ullrich said:
> >> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 16:16:30 +0200, Jeroen Boschma
> >> <jeroen.boschma@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:43:16 -0500, David C. Ullrich
> >> >> <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:20:06 +0200, Jeroen Boschma
> >> >> ><jeroen.boschma@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Theo Jacobs wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Hello everyone,
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I'm having an argument with a friend about the following problem:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Suppose you have a giant vase and a bunch of ping pong balls with an
> >> >> >>> integer written on each one, e.g. just like the lottery, so the balls
> >> >> >>> are numbered 1, 2, 3, ... and so on. At one minute to noon you put
> >> >> >>> balls 1 to 10 in the vase and take out number 1. At half a minute to
> >> >> >>> noon you put balls 11 - 20 in the vase and take out number 2. At one
> >> >> >>> quarter minute to noon you put balls 21 - 30 in the vase and take out
> >> >> >>> number 3. Continue in this fashion. Obviously this is physically
> >> >> >>> impossible, but you get the idea. Now the question is this: At noon,
> >> >> >>> how many ping pong balls are in the vase?
> >> >> [...]
> >When, exactly, does ball 2 get removed?
>
> At half a minute to noon. It says so above:
>
> "At half a minute to
> noon you put balls 11 - 20 in the vase and take out number 2."
I believe I was referring to the other scenario, where you add balls 11-20 and
remove ball 11, but you seem to have conveniently removed that context from
right before my response. Typical.
>
> >Never. I can't believe the confusion of
> >Cantorians.
>
> We can't believe the sort of obstinate ignorance you exhibit here
> all the time. But you could at least pretend to read things before
> replying to them.
You could at least not snip what I am responding to.
>
> >You add 9 balls an infinite number of times and get zero?
>
> Uh, no.
Uh, apparently.
>
> >It's bad
> >enough when you add an infinite number of 1's and somehow think you have some
> >finite sum.
>
> That would be pretty bad, all right. Who ever said that that happens?
Those that claim you can have an infinite number of natural numbers, each
separated from their predecessor by a quantity of 1, and still claim that they
are all finite. That's who. The apply successor an infinite number of times,
and claim that an infinite number of finite steps only takes one a finite
distance form the origin. Yeah, it's pretty bad. This argument is even worse.
>
> >This is mathematical insanity IMO.
> >>
> >
> >There was talk that the process produces a number of balls in the vase that
> >tends toward infinity as time tends towards noon,
>
> That's correct.
>
> >and there was a response that
> >we will never get to infinity, er, I mean, noon. We will never get to noon? I
> >guess I better eat a lot of breakfast, then. That's just more absurdity. It's
> >like saying Achilles never overtakes the tortoise. At noon, there ar an
> >infinite number of balls, and yet, one could continue the process until 3:30,
> >couldn't you? Gee, is that a "countable" number of balls? Cantorians need to
> >stop bullshitting and pretending they have any clear answers to anything.
Hmmm, no response?
>
>
> ************************
>
> David C. Ullrich
>

--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Quantcast