Magnus Anderson wrote:By the way, you have yet to address this:

Magnus wrote:An infinite sequence is not an algorithm for two reasons:

1) because algorithms are FINITE sequences (whereas infinite sequences are INFINITE sequences)

2) because algorithms are sequences of SPECIFIC THINGS (namely, instructions on how to perform a certain task) (whereas infinite sequences can be sequences of pretty much anything e.g. animals)

(Of course, this isn't the only thing you have yet to address. The list is quite long but for now I am only asking you to focus on this one.)

You made it clear that you agree that algorithms are finite sequences (and not infinite sequences.) I am happy about that. Given that algorithms are finite sequences, how can you say that infinite sequences are algorithms? By saying that infinite sequences are algorithms, you are saying that infinite sequences are finite sequences. Contradiction #1.

The other problem is that algorithms are sequences of INSTRUCTIONS whereas infinite sequences can be sequences of pretty much anything. So how can you say that sequences that can be sequences of pretty much anything are sequences that can only be sequences of instructions? Contradiction #2.

I am waiting for your response, Godot.

Magnus, honestly, I’m just shaking my head and thinking you’re retarded.

I barely want to bother with you anymore right now.

I’ll just offer some lazy “throw-away” sentences to you.

A finite algorithm CAN (not always) imply an infinite sequence. An infinite sequence can conversely imply a finite algorithm.

Infinite sequences cannot be finite sequences (convergence at limits never occur).

You’re not even bothering anymore to quote my arguments and respond to them.

You’re projecting big time here. I’ve addressed all your arguments ... you’ve stopped addressing mine for many pages now. You’re cherry picking shit. You’ve been doing it for a while now.

Every fucking time you gave me an actual argument (and not your filler) I addressed it. Every time I respond to your actual argument, you don’t address it, you address the filler. And then tell me that I haven’t responded to vast swaths of what you’ve put forth.

It’s actually insulting. You know, it fucking takes time and energy to post. You had my undivided attention, and you just keep shitting on it by ignoring it.

2 = 1+1

1+1 =2

How fucking simple is that? The algorithm implies the number, the number implies the algorithm. Not a peep from you!

I even said that that’s not my fucking point!!! You’re making it a point for no reason at fucking all!!

My actual point is that no possible being in existence can hold infinity in their mind, because infinity doesn’t fucking end. How fucking simple is that? Very fucking simple!

If no being can hold infinity in their mind, than infinity is not an object, but a fucking VERB!!!!

The number 1 is a fucking NOUN!!! It’s a person, place or thing. Get it?!?!

Infinity is NOT a fucking noun!!! It’s an ACTION that never ends. Infinity is motion of the cosmos itself!

It’s getting old Magnus.

How about another point I raised to you that you ignored!?!?

You state that you can add and subtract on a single infinite string. You only use subtraction because you already know that addition is absurd.

With addition:

0.333...666...

Is a number. You’d be laughed out of this thread so fast for saying that!!!!

So you only focus on “removal”

0.333...

And

0.0(333)...

Like several fucking people have already told you, if the zero moves up one step or the threes all move back one step, with infinite sets, they’ll all be holding hands again because infinity never fucking ends! I mean, honestly! This is like kindergarten shit!

Infinite sets don’t act the same as finite sets!!!

In a finite set, if you move forward one or back one, someone is not holding hands anymore!

That’s a fucking PROOF that the two sets behave differently (finite and infinite)!

I think you have spatial IQ issues, honestly, I do