(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)!!
Alright fine. You put in a very clear way “some meat on those bones”
It’s fine if you and I have to repeat ourselves at times…
1.) “algorithms are finite sequences)
Me: this is tautologically true; if an algorithm is infinite, it never stops to yield an output!!!
2.) “infinite sequences are infinite sequences”
Me: true, but also definitely false.
1/9 = 0.111…
Your word “are” also means “equals” in my case above, a finite expression “is” (are) equals an infinite expression.
3.) “algorithms can only be sequences of instructions”
Me: algorithms are finite instructions that imply the sequence. (Not sequences of instructions (You had it backwards)) Some are finite, some are infinite.
4.) “infinite sequences can be sequences of anything”
Me: umm… this is obviously not true. You’re going to kick yourself here. Sequence:(1,2,3) end sequence! Obviously that’s not infinite. The difference between you and I in this discussion is that I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN!! So I’m not going to hold it against you!!
Let me take this to a side discussion… I used to HATE song lyrics (they always contradict themselves) and then I realized “but I still know what they mean”. And I don’t hate them as much. You contradicted yourself big time here, but I still know what you MEAN!!
What you meant to say is that “any variable can be used as an infinite placeholder”… that’s what you MEANT! You often don’t afford me the same luxury! (Which is why I get so frustrated with you)
5 and 6 are Simply syllogisms that imply the first 4 are true
An algorithm does not need to halt in order to produce an output.
Consider a computer program that consists of an infinite number of one and the same statement: PRINT “HELLO WORLD”. Such a program will never stop running, and yet, it will write to your console as frequently as possible.
The reason why algorithms are finite sequences is not because an infinite sequence of instructions cannot produce an output (that’s not true) but quite simply due the definition of the word “algorithm”.
How can a statement be both true and false? Isn’t that a logical contradiction?
I have no idea what it means to say that algorithms are finite instructions. In fact, I am not aware of the difference between finite and infinite instructions. Can you clarify?
Wikipedia disagrees with you, though. Algorithms are defined as finite sequences of instructions.
So an infinite sequence cannot consist of certain kinds of things? What kinds of things?
I have no idea what that means.
The reason you get frustrated is because you don’t know how to interact with people (specifically, how to discuss ideas with them.)
They don’t imply the first four are true. Rather, they state if some of the previous statements are true, it follows that infinite sequences aren’t algorithms.
So you agree that algorithms are finite sequences and you also agree that infinite sequences are infinite sequences (but you also disagree, for some reason.)
If you agree with both of these statements then to say that an infinite sequence is an algorithm is to say that an infinite sequence is a finite sequence which is a logical contradiction.
This discussion has VERY little bearing on my points 3 pages ago, and I actually delved into it in a very complex way…
Let’s just chalk all this up to a minor “derail”
Like I explained before…
1/9 (very finite)
Also equals
1/10+1/100+1/1000+1/10000 etc…
In this way, Every finite number equals an infinite number of infinite series, the shorthand of which … is an algorithm (the series is implied from the command)
As far as the topic of the thread is concerned:
Does 0.999… = 1. In the same way that 0.111… =1/9?
(0.111\dotso) is an infinite sequence.
(Disagree.)
(\frac{1}{9}) is a finite sequence.
(Disagree.)
(0.111\dotso = \frac{1}{9}) is true.
(Disagree.)
If #1, #2 and #3 are true, it follows that there is at least one infinite sequence that is a finite sequence.
(I’m inclined to agree with this.)
The problem is that (\frac{1}{9}) and (0.111\dotso) are not sequences. They are numbers. (And it’s also not true that (0.111\dotso = \frac{1}{9}) but that’s a peripheral issue.)
This proves my point that you are not interested in a genuine discussion. Each time you are forced to interact with other people (rather than preach to them) you get uncomfortable.
That’s not a sequence, that’s a sum. You are confusing the two.
(0.111\dots), which is the same as (\frac{1}{10} + \frac{1}{10^2} + \frac{1}{10^3} + \cdots), is an infinite sum. It is not an infinite sequence. There’s a huge difference between the two.
It’s not a finite sequence. It’s not a sequence. It’s a NUMBER.
“It’s a SUM with an infinite number of terms!! That’s what convergence fucking is! A fucking SUM!!
Not a sequence, not a series! It’s a fucking SUM! A SOLUTION to the fucking additive infinite series!
You never addressed the argument that proves infinite and finite behave differently in anything resembling a rational manner.
It is a mathematical FACT that when you remove something (and notice when I pointed out that when you “add” to an infinite set, it’s so absurd that not even YOU are arguing that! ) so the only argument you think you have is removal!
This has been explained to you!
If you remove the first one:
Boy —>
Boy —> clone
Boy —> clone
Etc…
All that NEED fucking occur is that all the boys take ONE step forward, and EVERYONE is holding hands again. This is IMPOSSIBLE!! With finite sets!!
Impossible!!! It’s a fucking PROOF that the infinite works differently than the finite!!
You figured that out. That it disproved you.
So what did you do? You ignored it and then posted this:
Boy
Boy —> clone
Boy
Boy —> clone
Boy
Boy —> clone
Etc…
And I jumped in and said “if you move the first boy up one step and then the bottom two (now) up one step and the (now) bottom three up one step Etc… all at once, everyone will still be holding hands again! But only in infinity is this a FACT!! If this is finite, it’s impossible to do this! Thus: infinite and finite WORK differently!