The output of an algorithm is the algorithm itself
Algorithms are processes
Of course, both statements are false, but let us accept them as true and see where they lead us.
I believe that the two statements represent the premises in your argument that infinity is process. So what I’m going to try to show now is that accepting them as true leads to conclusions that contradict some of your previous claims.
There are algorithms that output a binary digit. They output a bit: either (1) or (0). This means that bits are the output of some algorithms.
Given that 1) bits are the output of some algorithms, and 2) the output of an algorithm is the algorithm itself, it follows that bits are the algorithms that produced them. And given that algorithms are processes, it follows that bits are processes just as well.
The conclusion is that BITS ARE PROCESSES.
This isn’t true but that’s not the main thing here.
The main thing here is that it contradicts your earlier claim that bits (being integers) are objects.
Either way, the output of an algorithm is not the algorithm itself. This is the central issue. And as usual, you are avoiding central issues by focusing on peripheral ones.
No shit! I’ve said that many times already. The algorithm implies the sequence but is not the sequence. This whole nonsense line you brought me through is the only thing periphery to actual points that I made:
The actual point is that all sequences are derived from algorithms, implied from the algorithm, and can only be in time. If infinite sequences are outside of time (not motion itself but rather able to ALL be seen at once) then it contradicts the basic definition of endless and there’s no point to call them infinite.
The fact that something is an output of an algorithm does not mean that it is an algorithm itself.
(It can be but not necessarily.)
Some algorithms output infinite sequences. But that does not mean that infinite sequences are algorithms. It simply does not follow.
(And no, they are not algorithms.)
You might as well say that you are the sex that your parents had when they decided to make you. But we all know that you aren’t. You are merely a product of that sex.
You do not go around telling people that the process of Ecmandu’s father having sex with Ecmandu’s mother “implies” Ecmandu and that Ecmandu is therefore precisely that process: the process of Ecmandu’s father having sex with Ecmandu’s mother.
You should have EXPLICITLY denied that the output of an algorithm and the algorithm itself are one and the same thing.
You should have said:
“No, the output of an algorithm is NOT the algorithm itself.”
But you didn’t.
Alright, so that’s not what you think. Still, the problem remains. The fact that something is an output of an algorithm does not mean that it is an algorithm itself. It simply does not logically follow. The fact that (2) is the output of an algorithm that outputs the sum of two integers does not mean that (2) is an algorithm. Do you agree?
The mathematical concept of sequence exists outside of time. (As do most of the mathematical entities.)
When we say that a sequence is endless, which means without an end, what that means is that there is no element within it that has the highest index (the element is otherwise known as “the last element”.)
(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.
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
(1 + 1) is not an algorithm. It is a mathematical expression that has the same meaning as (2). Thus, we say, (1 + 1 = 2). This too is a mathematical expression. What it says is that the expression (1 + 1) and the expression (2) have one and the same meaning.
The following, on the other hand, is an algorithm:
Set (a) to an integer of your choice.
Set (b) to an integer of your choice.
Set (c) to 0.
Add the value of (a) to (c).
Add the value of (b) to (c).
Stand up and loudly proclaim the value of (c).
This algorithm takes two integers as an input, calculates their sum and outputs it.
The above algorithm and the expression (1 + 1) represent two different things.
Anything that uses an operator is an algorithm. Whether finite or infinite.
Besides that:
You have unary code. Unary code uses either spaces (instead of zeroes) or enter buttons (instead of zeroes) or both (a form of trinary) (for the SAME symbol)
Unary is either ‘binary’ or ‘trinary’ at the same time.
What does this mean to this discussion?
I don’t know!
But more to your post ((which was totally (again) off topic))
Anytime an operator is used to represent something else, it’s an algorithm. Algorithm is always defined an an implication:
No algorithm?
1+1=1+1
With an algorithm?
1+1=2
Implication! It means there’s implication!
Again! This is you avoiding content.
THIS argument is you criticizing filler instead of the actual point of this post (which you again, ignored)!!