So what’s wrong with the argument I presented?
there is no such number as zero, zero is purely practical and allows for easier calculations in the indian derived digit system where it first originated as a dot(a case of form giving away a function) that was then made into a zero by the muslims who passed it onto Europeans. infinity is not a number but a paradox, there is no number that can define infinity whereas zero is only a defining function of a given number.
are you loonies also claiming to solve ancient paradoxes like the goon Satyr???what ever happened to you magnus?one of the few wimps to ever stand up to the big daddy S over at the asperg, neo-nazi lair of virginity…and one of the many there that argued at me pompously and pretentiously and when i wrote out thoughtful replies with an opposite argumentation, simply ignored me and did not reply, acting as if nothing happened…are you autsiders cousin???
I don’t recall having a discussion with you. Though I do remember there was a guy who called himself “Polish Youth”. Not that it matters, given that this thread isn’t about you and me.
Consider staying ontopic.
If you’re responding to me, you are supposed to show what’s wrong with the argument that I presented.
Any given deductive argument is mistaken either because some of its premises are false and/or because its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
That said, there are several possibilities:
- Both premises are false, the conclusion does not follow from the premises
- Both premises are false, the conclusion follows from the premises
- Only first premise is false, the conclusion does not follow from the premises
- Only first premise is false, the conclusion follows from the premises
- Only second premise is false, the conclusion does not follow from the premises
- Only second premise is false, the conclusion follows from the premises
- No premise is false, the conclusion does not follow from the premises
Pick one for the start then we’ll take it from there.
making a faulty or false observation logically cohesive makes it a faulty observation that is logically cohesive. if infinity is greater than any integer of a natural number then what is greater than any integer of a natural number given that you can always add another integer of a natural number since given the principle of mathematical induction you can always a number onto a natural number to make it even a greater natural number and continue like this indefinitely. you are saying infinity is infinity and simply using a substitute for the latter infinity to make it seem serious instead of clownish.
just blame it on the Jews and Christians and forget about it.
I asked you to pick your choice. You didn’t do that. Oh well (:
Given the above, I am led to conclude that you think that my argument is logically valid (which is what you mean by “logically cohesive”) but that one or both of my premises are false (which is what you mean by “faulty or false observation”.)
Here, you are basically arguing against the belief that the statement “Infinity is a number greater than every integer” is free from logical contradiction. And though I do think that that statement is free from contradiction, that’s not one of the premises used in my argument. The premise used in my argument is merely “Infinity is a number greater than every integer”. That statement merely states what the word “infinity” means. It does NOT state that “infinity” is not an oxymoron.
i have no patience to decode this autistic word salad, sorry to behave like a rude cunt but i am being honest. paradox is not an oxymoron…the paradox of infinity is as real of a problem as can be…what’s at the end of universe?nothing?there can be nothing, this is certain, and if there can be nothing there must be something and if there must be something then wherever you go, you must be able to go further and find something there…yet…how can you go indefinitely forever? if you could go forever, by default, you would have enough time to traverse all space…only that you could not do so by definition…there is nothing naive nor spooky about this because, unlike what arrogant 90 IQ buffoons claim, this problem remained unsolved for a thousands of years for a reason. similar to free-will…are you another imbecilic spook who thinks he has laid out a ‘solution’ to free-will???I think not, you are autistic but you can exchange thoughts and argue without starting to cry and bang your head on your desk as you melt-down…my respects sire…
There’s a difference between being a cunt and being honest. Moreover, there’s a difference between being honest (which merely means that each time you present a belief as your own that you present a belief that is truly your own) and being someone who frequently expresses what they truly believe (which is honesty coupled with tendency to speak one’s mind frequently.) Finally, there’s a difference between someone expressing what they honestly believe when it is appropriate to do so and someone expressing what they honestly believe when it is inappropriate to do so. In your case, you’re both a cunt and someone who’s expressing what they truly believe when they shouldn’t be really.
Doesn’t matter, it’s not part of my argument that infinity is not a paradox. (In the same exact way that it isn’t part of my argument that unicorns exist even though I may believe they do.)
I appreciate your compliments, my good Sir.
Note, however, that I will ignore this part of your post on the ground that it is irrelevant. I won’t be explaining why at this point because I’m not sure you’re interested in it.
Oh my,
We’re talking about infinity in this way again.
Infinity…
Let’s comprehend something really fast…
A googleplex raised to the googleplex power…
That’s ALOT of fucking zeros.
Compared to infinity, this is actually such an infinitesimal that it’s actually zero.
Let’s think about 1 followed by bazillions of zeroes and look at each place as a singe year. Long fucking time.
But then there’s infinity. This time is so small compared to infinity that it actually becomes zero.
I’ve told many people that it’s not death we’re afraid of, it’s forever that we’re afraid of.
So… our current plan is to make infinite souls entertained in a positive way. We all looked at the current plan (which took untold trillions of years to make) and we said “why the fuck not?” That’s all this is… “why the fuck not?”
I’m the one fucking being chosen by existence to test the plan for flaws… everyone in existence chose me for this job. And by the way, it’s not a glamorous or glorious job. I suffer every moment more than anyone in these boards can possibly comprehend as we sit here having this discussion. I was the idiot who took the job.
Let me explain something in the simplest way I possibly can…
You are not great unless everyone is great
You are not god until everyone is god
You are not in heaven until everyone is in heaven
i am happy if you are ecmaundu.
You get easily sidetracked, Ecmandu. Your last post has nothing to do with the subject (that you yourself chose.)
Pretty much everything Polish Youth wrote is a distraction. The best thing to do is to simply ignore him.
Here’s the discussion between the two of us:
[tab]Ecmandu:
Circles have an infinite number of angles.
Magnus:
An angle is something that exists between two rays that share an end-point. And rays happen to be straight lines, don’t they? Given that circles have no straight lines, I would say that circles have no angles whatsoever (rather than an infinity of them.)
Ecmandu:
A circle (unlike any other shape) has the maximal number of rays.
Magnus:
But there are no rays in a circle.
Ecmandu:
Like I’ve tried to explain before when it comes to this particular shape: 0 = infinity.
There are no rays and there are an infinite number of rays.
Magnus:
-
Infinity is a number greater than every integer.
-
Zero is not greater than every integer (i.e. there are integers greater than zero e.g. number one.)
-
Therefore, “zero” and “infinity” refer to two different concepts.[/tab]
It’s your turn to explain what’s wrong with my argument against the idea that (0 = \infty).
You have yet to do such a thing.
(But of course, you don’t have to. But it would be nice and it certainly would be on-topic as opposed to what you’re doing right now.)
jesus you people are nuts…i am nuts too…too many nuts…
So magnus,
Here we are.
Like I stated before… ideal lines have length but no width.
Really, think about an actual circle for a moment … drawn with a pencil…
It has width. It has an infinite amount of straight lines.
It really depends on how you look at it…
Is each line slightly curved from top and bottom to make the circle (analogue) or is each segment a perfectly straight line (digital).
If you believe in Planck… you’re a digitalist. (The lowest possible space). If you’re wrong, continuum is the law for everything… which means that the lines of a circle are always curved.
That does not address the argument that I presented.
Yes it does. Zero is the same as 1 numerically, as I explained earlier… when you have a circle that we understand (not an ideal circle that has no points) then we have something that we can always cut a little piece off of. The question is, is this teeny piece curved or straight?
In a binary existence it’s straight, in an analog existence it’s always slightly curved to matter how small the piece is.
The reason this was an answer to your question is hopefully apparent…
You stated that there are no straight lines in a circle. No rays.
This is true if existence is analog.
So… I posit to you … what do you think existence is?
But even more to the point…
Even if existence is analog and you shave off a small part of the circle… because of perceptual acuity (and not under a microscope) it will look exactly straight, it will be a ray for all intents and purposes.
It does not address it. Assuming you’re interested, let me explain why.
You made a claim that (0) equals (\infty). (The idea being that if we say that a circle has an infinite number of sides that we’re also saying that it has zero sides.)
I presented an argument against that claim.
Since you disagree with its conclusion, it follows that there’s something wrong with my argument. Your task is to explain what’s wrong with it.
Any given deductive argument is flawed either because some of its premises are false and/or because its conclusion does not follow from its premises. Thus, to explain what’s wrong with a deductive argument, you have to make a claim that some or all of its premises are false and/or that the conclusion does not follow from its premises.
Did you do that with respect to my argument?
No, you haven’t.
This is the argument that I presented:
Is premise #1 false?
Answer with “Yes” or “No”.
Is premise #2 false?
Answer with “Yes” or “No”.
Is my argument logically invalid i.e. is it the case that the conclusion does not follow from the premises?
Answer with “Yes” or “No”.
Now you’re making a NEW claim, namely, that (0) equals (1).
You have yet to defend your earlier claim (:
It is true because of the way the word “circle” is defined.
It is NOT true because existence is this or that way.
Whether existence is analog or digital is irrelevant.
It does not matter what existence is.
We’re dealing with concepts here.
Magnus…
1 means everything is exactly the same. If everything is exactly the same, it means that everything is zero; non existence.
So hence come to a 1 sided figure… a circle, the only 1 sided figure.
As a total arc, it has the property of having an infinite number of rays.
You don’t seem to get that I won’t listen to anything new you have to say unless you first address my last response to you.
I much prefer you get off your pedestal and actually start interacting with me instead of merely ranting and holding monologues.