Re: infinity
- From: Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 12:28:10 -0600
In article <MPG.1d6535d6b95b8b0198a04f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Yes. You declared all infinities equal, assumed you had some smallest
> > > infinity,w hich is impossible, and then claimed W-W=0, which is hardly
> > > agreed upon, and generally considered to be undefined, because infinities
> > > actually DO come in different forms.
> >
> > Well, I agree that my math was bogus, but I thought I was following
> > your rules when I wrote it. Apparently I wasn't.
> That's okay. I DO consider 000...001:000...000 to be a different number than
> 000...000:111...111, although their ratio is essentially 1. It's like the
> difference between 0.111... and 1.000...
The binary numerals 0.111... and 1.000... may be different, but the
numbers that they represent are not. TO apparently has this delusion
that the numeral and the number it represents are the same thing.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- References:
- Re: infinity
- From: guenther vonKnakspot
- Re: infinity
- From: William Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: guenther vonKnakspot
- Re: infinity
- From: William Hughes
- Re: infinity
- From: guenther vonKnakspot
- Re: infinity
- From: David Kastrup
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: Virgil
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- From: David R Tribble
- Re: infinity
- From: aeo6
- Re: infinity
- Prev by Date: Re: infinity
- Next by Date: Re: proving the existence of a sequence
- Previous by thread: Re: infinity
- Next by thread: Re: infinity
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|