Re: infinity
- From: "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:59:49 +0200
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Virgil said:
>> In article <MPG.1d618aae41392f57989fe9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > > Which ball is not covered by that argument?
>> > N+1 through 10n+9.
>>
>> If TO means "n+1 through 10n+9" he is presuming that there is a last,
>> nth, step, which is specifically prohibited by the rules.
>>
>> And as there is no last step, there is no ball that is not covered.
>>
> Then there is no point at which the last ball is removed. Isn't that
> correct?
The last ball? What's the number written on that one? When was it
put in?
It's this clear, incisive analysis that ensures the success of your
mathematical revolution, no doubt.
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Basically there are two angry groups. I am a harsh force of
one. Against me is a society of mathematicians. So far it's been a
draw." -- JSH gives another display of keen insight.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- References:
- infinity
- From: Theo Jacobs
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: William Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: Dave Seaman
- Re: infinity
- From: snapdragon31
- Re: infinity
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Virgil
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- infinity
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: infinity
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity
- Next by thread: Re: infinity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|