Re: infinity

Jesse F. Hughes said:
> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Jesse F. Hughes said:
> >> 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?
> > "largest finite. largest finite."
>
> Let's call this largest finite number x.
I was referring to the fact that you always try to turn it into a matter of
whether there is a largest finite or not, even when that is irrelevant, and try
to assert that I am claiming there is a largest finite, despite repeated
asserions on my part to the contrary. Talk about stupid.
>
> Now, by definition of the problem, every ball labeled n is put in at
> time
>
> noon - 2^(-f(n))
>
> where f(n) = floor(n / 10). Right?
Wrong. Iteration n occurs at time noon - minute * 1/2^n. What are you applying
your floor() function to? Minutes? That would make every iteration happen at
11:59.

> So ball x was put in at
> noon - 2^(-f(x)). This is before noon, so 2^(-f(x)) must be greater
> than zero, right?
Not at n=oo, unless you allow for infinitesimals.
>
> But ball x should be taken out at time
>
> noon - 2^(-x).
Uh huh.
>
> Now, I'd think that this is also before noon, but apparently you don't
> think so. Thus, it appears that we have deduced a startling property
> of the largest finite number:
>
> 2^(-floor(x/10)) > 0, but 2^(-x) <= 0.
>
> Wow. I wonder whether 2^(-floor(x/2)) > 0 or not.
>
> How did you ever deduce this startling fact?
I don't know. You just did that, and it decayed from the beginning into
senseless drivel, starting with the very first mistake.

At any finite amount of time before noon, n is finite, obviously. All the
infinite iterations happen AT noon, since they take INFINITESIMAL amounts of
time. That is where your infinite set comes from, at that very last moment.
That moment does not include an emptying of the vase.

Every time you remove a ball, you have just added 10. There is no way you ever
reduce the number to zero. This is logic. What you are doing is obfuscation.

None of this nonsense explains how the limit is infinite, but somehow a
discontinutity happens when you start thinking about infinity, and suddenly
*POOF* the vase is empty. Stop playing magic with infinity, and you may
actually start to understand it. As it is, you think you do, but you don't.
>
> >>
> >> It's this clear, incisive analysis that ensures the success of your
> >> mathematical revolution, no doubt.
> >>
> >>
> > Snideness noted.
>
> I'll stop being snide if you stop being stupid.
I am not being stupid. In my opinion, you are all being stupid and obstinate in
your insanity. It seems the only way to avoid being called an imbecile,
crackpot, fool, or anything else is to agree with your insanity. Sorry. If it
doesn't make sense, i am not accepting it, even if that leaves me alone in the
world.
>
> >
> > If you claim that the vase at some point becomes empty, and want to
> > challenge those that claim otherwise by asking which ball remains,
> > then they have equal right to ask which is the final ball removed
> > which leaves the vase empty.
>
> They have that right, but it's a stupid question. There is no such
> thing as the final ball and the vase is non-empty for every time prior
> to noon (after 11:59).
But at some point all balls are removed. When is that, and how does it happen,
without adding more balls than are removed, when you add ten before removing
any one ball? It's not a stupid question at all. Certainly no more stupid than
asking which ball is left. The fact that there is any question that there are
an infinite number of balls in the vase at noon is stupid. Ask any school
child, and you will get my answer. Try to explain your answer, and they will
glaze over and eventually agree simply due to your authority, the same way you
did when you first swallowed this junk.
>
> > If you cannot name the last ball removed, then why should anyone
> > have to name which ball remains?
>
> There is no largest finite number. That's a simple fact, obvious to
> everyone sensible about mathematics.
Obvious to me too. It is also obvious that no last ball can be removed, since
there are always more added than removed, which has nothing whatsoever to do
with there being a largest finite number.
>
> See the difference?
No. They are complementary questions about the same situation.
>
> Everyone agrees that there is a number written on every ping pong
> ball. Therefore, if there is a ping pong ball in the vase at noon,
> one should presumably be able to determine what number is on the ball.
If you can name the last ball removed, say number x, then I can name nine times
as many that are still in the vase. The fact is, the balls don't even need to
be numbered at all to derive the answer to this problem, and the fact that you
seem to think they do demonstrates total confusion in your modelling of the
problem.
>
> But only you (and a handful of similarly deluded folk) think there was
> a last ball removed.
No, we do not think there is a last ball removed. You do, if you claim the vase
is empty, and that is what we are pointing out. For any ball you claim to be
removed, there are 9 times as many still in the vase as have been removed.

> This is related to your belief that there is a
> largest natural number.
I have repeatedly stated that I have no such belief. Your repetition of this
lie only demonstrates your inability to listen and remember anything except
what was already implanted in the fungal region of your brain.

> But no one else shares that belief and indeed
> many times we've shown why the belief is just nonsensical.

I have never disagreed that that idea is nonsensical. What IS nonsensical is
your insistence that I have. Nonsensical, illogical, and dishonest. AND stupid.

> So why
> should we pretend to believe that there *is* a last ball removed? And
> how can we answer your question without pretending that?
You need to explain how you think a constantly increasing function suddenly
becomes zero for no apparent reason at infinity. You are saying lim x->oo(9x)=
0, which is clearly false. This entire mode of thought is false.
>
> Anyway, the mythical largest finite number doesn't help you. As long
> as x is finite, we are sure that 2^-x is non-zero, so the ball is
> labeled x will be removed before noon. (And if it really *were* the
> last ball put in the vase, then there's your answer: it's the last
> ball removed, too.)
Balls are not added 1 at a time. If it were the last ball added, and the last
ball removed, there would have to be at least nine others left in the vase, and
there would be more, unless the vase were already empty, which is impossible.
>
> > This focus on the names of the balls is entirely unnecessary. If you
> > claim the vase is empty at noon, describe the process whereby, after
> > growing constantly, the vase is suddenly empty.
>
> The process was given in the statement of the problem.
Not the process that makes it empty. The process increases the count by 9 at
each iteration. The count never decreases in any iteration. So how does it
empty? It doesn't. This is yet another of the incorrect conclusions of this
"theory". It's a piece of swiss cheese.
>
> > There is no last ball removed. For every ball removed, 10 are
> > added. The vase is never empty, and any conclusions to that effect
> > that you derive from this retarded Cantorian system indicate
> > assumptions within that system which are wrong.
>
>
>

--
Smiles,

Tony
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: infinity
    ... >> Which axioms allow completion of an infinite ... That's what a sequence is, by the way: ... If you do not interrupt the process, the vase never "reaches" noon. ... >> B) Follow the original scenario except that as ball n (which is ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... How can one reach infinity, put an end, a finis to an infinite process? ... Putting a ball in vase at 1 minute before twelfe, ... both start at ten o'clock and the turtoise is doing one round in the ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... the vase, is consistent with the fact that no balls are removed at noon? ... The only relevant question is "According to the rules set up in the ... is each ball inserted before noon also removed before noon?" ... An affirmative answer confirms that the vase is empty at noon. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > Which axioms allow completion of an infinite ... >> But at noon, the vase is empty. ... It has nothing to do with infinite series. ... A while ago I gave an equivalent formulation of this ball problem in ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An uncountable countable set
    ... Does Han claim that there is any ball put in that is not taken out? ... the vase empties". ... But in order for the vase to transition from not-empty ... If the vase ever became empty, ...
    (sci.math)