Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

It does mean that it’s a SUM!!!

YOU’RE the one who used the word “sum” incorrectly, not me!

But here you are AGAIN nit-picking over stupid shit and avoiding arguments that have to do with either:

1.) 0.999… 1 (or not)
2.) orders of infinity exist (or not)

Converges to means the same exact thing as “equals”

Magnus!! Who gives a fuck about this trivial shit anyways?!?!

You have arguments to look at!

I did not ignore it. I responded to it by stating that it’s not something that you can do because it is strictly forbidden by your previous claims.

Let’s go back to page 98 where I stated:

Note the bolded part.

In order to restore one-to-one correspondence between the two sets, there must be an unpaired clone to pair with an unpaired boy. But there is no such a clone. All of the clones are already paired. Thus, regardless of how you move your clones, you cannot restore one-to-one correspondence.

You responded to this by saying that the word “infinity” refers to a never-ending process of increase which means that new clones are added continually. So when we remove a clone, a new one is added automatically.

And my response to this was that the word “infinity” does not refer to a never-ending process of increase (that it does not refer to a process at all.)

That’s not true.

You’re still doing it! You’re ego is invested in nit-picking and not arguments!!!

There is a difference between ‘converges to’ (which is convergence) and ‘converges towards’ which is not convergence. But!! Even that’s a contradiction because the word convergence IN AND OF ITSELF is defined as the finite conclusion of a sequence or series. Infinite or not.

It’s part of your argument that infinite sequences are both finite and infinite sequences.

That in turn is part of your argument that infinite sequences are algorithms.

That in turn is part of your argument that the word “infinity” refers to a never-ending processes of increase.

That in turn is part of your argument that infinities do not come in sizes.

Not true.

This part is transitive:

1/9 implies 0.111…

0.111… implies 1/9

If they both imply each other, they are equalities.

I have no idea what that means.

And that’s why this debate is over. Because you don’t understand, really, much of anything said here!

But let me be kind to you for a moment!

2+3=5
3+2=5

That means 2 and 3 are transitive: they mean the same thing!

I’ve seen you write a bunch of fancy symbols, but you don’t even understand kindergarten math!

That’s why we are butting heads here!

This isn’t supposed to be a contest of beliefs but a cooperative effort to resolve disagreements. (But then again, this is a forum, so pretty much everything anyone does here is some sort of competition where people try to prove themselves to be the smartest guy in the room.)

What do you mean by “transitive”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation

Either way, it’s definitely not true that (2) and (3) mean the same thing.

Magnus,

I have to admit, at this point, I enjoy teaching you because you don’t quit!

Transitive (strictly speaking) (as an example)

Is:

ab = ba

I gave you a more advanced version in the last post; what I should have said is that:

2+3 = 3+2

3+2 = 2+3

Etc…

When you introduce a new variable (such as “5”) (c) it becomes a different term than purely transitive, Wikipedia is wrong.

That looks like commutativity.

Here it is:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=190558&p=2768316#p2768299

And you are ignoring it (:

Oh man, that’s embarrassing for me.

You have to understand that I had brain damage (was in a coma for four hours) because of a head injury.

I went from being a super-genius to just your run of the mill genius.

Yes, your neurons were not misfiring on this!

It’s communicative!

You mean commutative (:

chuckles

You know Magnus,

Brain damage did not impair my logic, just my memory.

The link you just sent me implies that I’m not allowed to make ANY argument that shows FOR A FACT that infinite and finite behave differently (supposedly (according to you) by my own reasoning).

Your argument about me contradicting myself by having every boy step forward and still all be holding hands is a fantasy of yours! It violates YOUR reasoning! Not what I’ve presented in this thread.

You know why I know I’ll win this debate?

Because I know god doesn’t exist.

Let me put this to you a different way.

Wtf left the thread because “nobody understands cardinality”. It went over your head!

There is a highest order of cardinality that in laypersons terms means “the infinite cardinal”

This is a proof of god.

Cantor knew it to.

This is not just a simple thread/discussion about math.

Our every sentence in this thread is also about whether god exists or not!

Very high stakes for lots of people.

I am not sure I understand what you’re saying here.

How? What’s wrong with it? Which part do you disagree with?

That’s precisely what it is.