Re: infinity
- From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:01:58 +0200
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Virgil said:
>> In article <MPG.1d63ea93f662513798a025@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > Virgil said:
>> > > In article <MPG.1d62a26e316b301a98a006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > > Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > 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."
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's this clear, incisive analysis that ensures the success of your
>> > > > > mathematical revolution, no doubt.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > Snideness noted.
>> > >
>> > > Snideness fully justified.
>> > > >
>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > We claim empty because we can give a precise time before noon for each
>> > > and every ball's removal:
>> > >
>> > > There is one ball for each n in N = {1,2,3,...}. For each n in N, the
>> > > n'th ball is removed at 1/2^(n-1) minutes before noon.
>> > >
>> > > If TO claims that our schedule omits or overlooks some ball, it is now
>> > > up to TO to identify that ball which he alleges remains in the vase at
>> > > noon.
>>
>> > I have already stated this several times. You have omitted the n+1 through
>> > 10n-
>> > 1th balls which were added before the nth ball was removed.
>>
>> It appears that TO claims that there is some (n+1)st to (10n-1)st ball
>> whose number is so large that it does not get removed before noon.
>>
>> Just how large does n have to be for one of these (n+1)st to (10n-1)st
>> numbered balls to be too large to get removed before noon?
>>
>> Give us a specific value, TO.
>>
> For every value of n this is a fact, as any child can tell you.
So you should be able to specify just a _single_ value of n, right?
Give the number of a single ball that is not going to be removed.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
.
- References:
- infinity
- From: Theo Jacobs
- 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
- Re: infinity
- From: Jesse F. Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Virgil
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Virgil
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- infinity
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: Set of irrationals closed under sum
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity
- Next by thread: Re: infinity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|