Re: infinity

Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> stephen@xxxxxxxxxx said:
>> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > stephen@xxxxxxxxxx said:
>> >> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > Jesse F. Hughes said:
>> >> >> Tony Orlow (aeo6) <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why? Was there a last one added? If not, how did the process of
>> >> >> >> adding balls end? The process of taking them out ended the same way:
>> >> >> >> without a final step.
>> >> >> > The process ended at noon. How did the process end?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The same way the process of putting the balls in ended. Are you
>> >> >> claiming there was a last ball added? If not, why do you ask when the
>> >> >> last ball was removed?
>> >> > because you claim there were balls in the vase, and then it became empty, and
>> >> > you are only removing 1 ball at a time, so there MUST have been a last ball
>> >> > removed.
>> >>
>> >> And you are claiming that the vase started out with a finite number
>> >> of balls, and ended up with an infinite number of balls, and you are
>> >> only adding a net of 9 balls at a time, so there must have been a point
>> >> at which n+9 = oo for some finite n, right?
>> > LOL!!! I suppose if the problem were that we added one ball at a time every 1/2
>> > ^n seconds, that it would never reach infinity either, because of your "no
>> > largest finite number" mantra? Give it up already. That nonsense is not an
>> > excuse or an explanation for any of this absurdity. I can't believe you would
>> > be so short-sighted as to try to raise that tired o;d rotten red herring in
>> > such an obviously irrelevant place.
>>
>> You did not answer the question. For which finite n does n+9 become
>> infinite? You claim that it becomes infinite, and you require
>> that it becomes infinite at some specific step. You cannot
>> demand that we identify the step at which the number of balls
>> becomes zero unless you identify the step at which the
>> number of balls becomes infinite.
> LOL. So, your position is that, if we didn't remove ANY balls at each step, and
> just added 10 each time, that it would STILL not be infinite at noon, because
> we cannot identify the point at which it beomes infinite? Is that your
> position? (Oh, please, say "yes").

No. Why would you think that?

If you add 1, or 10 balls, and do not remove any balls, there is no step
in the process that begins with a finite number of balls and ends with
an infinite number of balls. However when noon arrives, there will
be an infinite number of balls in the vase.

Likewise, if we are removing balls, there is no step in the process
that begins with one ball and ends up with zero balls. However
when noon arrives there will be zero balls in the base.

You agree that in the first case there is no step that starts
with a finite number of balls and ends with an infinite number
of balls. Yet you accept that the final result is infinite, despite
the fact that no step actually produces an infinite result.
However you reject that the vase could become empty exactly
because there is no step that actually produces a result of zero.
If you were consistent you would also reject that the number
of balls ever becomes infinite, because no step results
in an infinite number of balls. Or you would accept that
the number of balls becomes zero.

Stephen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... values from infinite repulsion through zero gravity to infinite ... According to the first link posted, the chance of gravity being what it ... The remaining balls have one of the numbers from 1-999 on them. ... amount from zero to near-infinity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >>> never get the empty set at any finite step. ... > Which balls are in the vase at state E. ... > the vase at any finite step. ... A larger infinity than the infinite number that have been ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... > balls, so the number of balls can never decrease to zero under any ... Then it must either increase to zero or jump to zero, ... > assumptions about infinite sets and numbers which are not necessarily ... Then the entire gedankenexperiment does the same, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: INFINITY Revisited
    ... Are you then saying that by noon an infinite number of balls have been ... I believe it follows that balls with an infinite number of digits must ... nonterminating decimals. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> You seem to have pulled the infinite series ... > there are nine more balls in the vase that there were at the end of the ...
    (sci.math)
Loading