obsrvr524 wrote:My question pertained to multiplying numeric sets. I have posted it twice. You have ignored it now twice. Then, as predicted, tried to change the subject.
Guy, you need to chill the fuck out.
Like I said, just because "you don't see the connection yet, don't
presume there is none, let me explain it to you" - do you agree that "
presumption is the seed of all sin" like you said, or not? You're so convinced of some combination of malevolence, incompetence, psychological or political compromise on my part that you refuse to see other quite obvious explanations as to how hard it seems to be to have a simple discussion. Stop
presuming so I can unpack this for you, and it will all come together for you unless you don't want to see it do so, which won't be my fault.
We calm now? Great. We can continue
obsrvr524 wrote:"May I query this explanation?" does NOT equate to "I disagree". If anything it would be "May I query into THAT explanation (learn the difference - "this here" vs "that there"). But in reality you merely chose to argue about a different subject:
To briefly address this one before we get to the actual content, I thought it was fairly straight forward, but as before I have simply been misinterpretted and
presumed to be distracting. People ask if they can query something if they think they see the source of some disagreement in said something, no? I proceded to that source, to query whether it shined any light on what's going on here. Like I said, there's a connection between all the things I'm saying that I'm trying to bring together in a way that gets to the bottom of our disagreement. If you'd let me explain it to you, you'd see it too. I apologise for not being as literal and concise as you seem to need me to be, ok? I'm trying.
obsrvr524 wrote:I said that you add 1 to your
position. I did not say that you add 1 to the value that is at your position. So more like this:
Infinite set represented as: {..., x, Y, z, ...}
Add 1 TO position y:
New set looks like: {... x, y, Z, ...}
Right, great. Query answered! Easy, right?
Let's ride this momentum, shall we? It doesn't mean the rest of my post is nonsense, it just means it doesn't necessarily get to the bottom of things as directly as I suspected and wanted to test.
obsrvr524 wrote:you still haven't addressed the issue of your lack of adding the subtotals in order to get the proper product of multiplied sets infA * infA = InfA^2
I felt I had, you disagree. This is fine, don't flip the fuck out.
To be clear, I've been well aware of the formula (x + y)^2 = (x^2 + 2xy + y^2) since I learned and repeatedly applied it correctly while at school.
You took my method of expanding (x+y)^2 as something like just "2xy", or just "x^2 + xy" - only part of the full process at any rate & missing "subtotals" as you say, which makes sense from the way you've perfectly correctly presented it.
May I please request, at this point, for you to agree or disagree whether this adequately encapsulates where you think I went wrong? May I also please request if you think I've sufficiently acknowledged and shown understanding of the point of your contention?
If so, I invite you to consider the scenario where x = y, as done all the way back on page 4:
Using the same form as I did above just now, we now get (x + x) * (x + x) = (x^2 + 2xx + x^2)
Do you agree that this can also be written as (x^2 + 2xx + x^2) = (x^2 + x^2 + x^2 + x^2)?
More specifically, on page 4 we were covering the case that x = y = 1
so since (x + x) * (x + x) = (x^2 + x^2 + x^2 + x^2)
we have (1 + 1) * (1 + 1) = (1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2)
this can be written as (1 + 1)^2 = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1)
Am I right? Do you agree there has been no funny business or "switching up" so far?
A similar thing occurs when you have (1+1+1)^2 = (1^2 + 1*1 + 1*1 + 1^2 + 1*1 + 1*1 + 1^2 + 1*1 + 1*1)
Obviously the right hand side can be expanded to (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1)
As I said in
this post: "Consider the example (1+1+1+...+1), is it agreed that the "..." represents an endless string of "1+1"s?"
We covered the examples of (1+1)^2 = (1+1+1+1) and (1+1+1)^2 = (1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1). I'm sure you don't need any more examples of adding an extra 1 each time to solve (1+1+1+1)^2 and so on?
So we ought to be able to jump all the way to (1+1+1+...+1)^2, I feel.
Each time we progress towards this from (1+1)^2, through (1+1+1)^2, through (1+1+1+1)^2 and so on, we get an answer that can be written as (1 + "some finite number of zeroes" + 1)^2 = (1 + "some
other finite number of zeros" + 1)
I want to stress that in these finite examples,
I acknowledge that "some finite number of zeroes" on the left hand side is not the same as "some other finite number of zeroes" on the right hand side.
Are we in agreement that I acknowledge this and there is still no funny business or "switching up" so far?
The problem is once you transcend these finite examples to the infinite, by the definition of infinity you can no longer bound "some finite number of zeroes" or "some other finite number of zeroes" - they are both endless. There is not an end to either, such that one's end can be longer or further than another.
Are we in agreement that this is where you think the funny business happens?
My argument is that if you stick strictly to the definition of infinity, (1+ "infinite zeroes +1)^2 = (1+ "infinite zeroes + 1)
That is to say, (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1) = (1+1+1+...+1)
As I understand it, you distinguish infinite, endless strings of 1s being added up from other infinite, endless strings of 1s being added up. Are you in agreement with this?
You represent the rationale by showing the relation that finite examples show as you tend towards infinity, which is correct.
You represent the rationale by showing the construction of the infinite examples and how they are constructed differently, which is also correct.
Do you agree that I acknowledge your rationale fairly and accurately?
Do you agree that I understand where our arguments diverge?
Do you agree that infinity, by definition has no bounds in order to say one is larger or goes further than another?
Do you agree that this on topic and relates to where you think I made a mistake here:
obsrvr524 wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:Silhoutte wrote: but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.
And that is where you screwed up this time.
After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.
When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get
infA * infA = infA^2.
If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it
and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it
and ask if I agree.It would save a whole lot of wall paper.
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:32 pm
lol
"
