I can see the definitional aspect I was pointing more to the idea that you cannot be ceratin of something untill you know that the something isn’t true…in otherwords I was just saying you can’t no an end doesn’t exist untill you have reached it, but if it is considered the end that does not exist then ok,silly concept to refer to at all though as such…not really relivant with repect with the idea I am trying to get across…
Of though:
your said"“Infinity” is defined as the end of an infinite line" this translates then to: “infinity” is defined as the end of something that does not have an end. which would indicate it does not have an end and does not exist…
As such let us start using the quatity I will refer to as L0 which is the last number that is not infinite, by definition. If we can define something non-existent such as infinite then even if something is impossible to be represented by numbers as we know it I don’t see why we can’t have the concept of the thing…
Yes. And that is why a single infinite step cannot ever happen, thus one certainly (100%) cannot make more than one.
[/quote]
Yet it would seem something can cross something that is infinitely big with a finite amount of time…
Like say a distance from here to the end of the known universe.
But still it would seem that if you were a dot in a line…an infinitely small thing, then that thing you were within would be infinitely larger than you to the extent to which you could not get to the end… How could an infinitely small thing be added up such as to make a specific amount.
Perhaps I should say what is (1/.00…0001)?
[/quote]
“The last number” already doesn’t exist. That has nothing to do with its “next to infinity” situation.
So your “L0” wouldn’t exist either because there is no “last number”.
Calculus is about relative infinities or more specifically about the relation between a particular infinitesimal and a particular infinite. That relative sizing can be finite.
Ididn’t say the alast number alone i said the-last-number-that-exists: but I see the confusion what I meant was that L0 = the number farthest from the smalles possible number.
It is a thing for which we cannot specify a value by means of digital representation, but conceptually it does exist… it is like knowing that their is air, yet not being able to see it with your eyes…
It is no different then not witnessing the summation of all infinite parts to an infinite sum that sums to a finite…yet one still knows it sums to a finite…
because it is asserted as existing by definition perhaps…
But let me ask you this…does the number one less then L0 exist?
Unlike air, we know conceptually that this number doesn’t exist. We know it because of our very concepts of number that there cannot be a greatest number.
But there are very precise rules for infinite sums and not all infinite series can be summed over.
not accorsing to your definition.
Accorfing to the definition of L0 it would seem it can though but anyways…
Perhaps I should say L0= the farthest possible number from the smallest possible number, that exists.
But I find that unnecessary because I said the farthest ‘possible’ thus it is the number farthes from the smallest number that still exists what ever that number is…
But think of this…i think you argues at one point in another topic with me that .000…0001 exists
and that like wise .999…999 exists.
Then doesn’t 9999999999999999999999… exist? perhaps that is what L0 most likely is L0=(9…)
Any ways if I then posit the number that is equal to the amount between 1 an L0 and call it M0
the I have that L0-M0=1
And as some might say.9999999999…=1 maybe it is fair to say that if L0=(9…) then it is like the non-existent (inf)…
But on contrary and oddly L0-(any number) is indeterminate for the most part…Sort of…
You might could say that L0=(9…) thus (9…)-1 = 999…998 and that (9…)-2=999…997
Just because you can’t see it or have a definitive representation does not mean it does not exist… the greates number does exist we just can’t know what it is exactly… although I posited a possibility of sort above…
I didn’t say they all could be but i don’t see how all of them not means that then this thing cannot exist…
This is the kind of nonsense that one gets into if one allows for something like 0.000…001. There is no procedure to generate such a number, just like there is no procedure to generate 999…
If we had a largest number, then we could just add one to that number and get a larger number. Thus it is simply a contradiction to suppose that there is a largest number.
The only reason there is Procedure to generate a number like 1 or 2 is due to the assumption of those numbers representing a particular percived object…We percive an apple for instance as seperate from another due to the seperation we visualize as a result of light…If we saw just atoms by some capacity, then we would see constant movement and alteration of the thing and likely alteration between consitancy between one and another…we might be able to arrive at the definition of a thing as the primary grouping of atoms but that might be hard to do…ultimately would be reasonable to consider them one thing…just as one might consider a rench as one thing despite haveing multiple moving parts. The two apples could be defined as multiple parts of a whole…Just as the atoms we call multiple parts of a whole. Distinguishing a things into parts is purely a functioning of the mind…
