A proof against past infinities, present (actual) infinities, and potential (future) infinities.
1.If individual A has an infinite amount of gold coins, and gives individual B every third gold coin, then individual A must have more gold coins, since he has 2/3rd’s more.
2. Yet, individual B must have an equal amount as well. (Since there is a numerical equality between the first set of two in each set, and the next set of two, and the next, and each additional set of two, all the subsets of two within each set are paired, and therefore, both sets are equal.
3. Yet, individual A can not have more gold coins and an equal amount of gold coins in relation to those that individual B has.
4. Therefore, infinite series are logically impossible.
5. Therefore, past infinities, present infinities, and future infinities are logically impossible.
Number 2 is invalid.
It is a common mistake in mathematics to be free with associations. The associative property does not apply to infinite series. All infinities are not alike.
A = [1+1+1+…+1]
is NOT equal to;
B = [(1+1) + (1+1) + (1+1) + … (1+1)]
In fact, B = 2A
The total number of terms must be of equal length and also add to the same quantity in order for two infinite series to be equal. And infinity is a quality, not a quantity.
The set that individual A has (1 on into infinity) must be equal to the set that individual B has (1 on into infinity). There is a 1 to 1 correspondence between each member of both sets.
Infinity is a Quality, not a Quantity. Infinity is not a “number”.
The two series are not of equal length even though they are both infinite in quality.
There quantity differs by 1:3.
The problem you’re encountering here is that you think of infinity as a complete thing when you’re abstracting this. Infinity by definition doesn’t stop… so there is no WHOLE from which to subtract 1/3 from and leave only 2/3 left. To approach this problem you need to look at the progression, from the start NOT THE FINISH, and when you look at this, one infinity is expanding twice as fast as another infinity, even though there is 1:1 correspondence.
Hilbert pointed this out a few years ago 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert’s_ … l#Analysis
It’s not a logical contradiction per se (given the nature of mathematical infinities), but it’s counter-intuitive.
I don’t believe that the concept of infinity has any real-world referents, only mathematical ones, so mathematicians can define things as they find mathematical logic necessitates.
the infinity is a whole from which every third coin is simultaneously given to individual B.
since infinite series are logically impossible, the religious notions of eternal heaven and eternal hell are logically impossible.
My mum pointed out that the limit of 0 and the limit of everything are two axioms that relate to the limit of x. My mum was right there is nothing quite like 0 and there is nothing quite as > as x, as infinity as a concept shows, but those limits will at the end of the day serve a purpose to show proofs.
Me neither but have you ever tried having that argument with a mathematician?
have you ever tried explaining that to James?