It's only vague because you fail to see it's not.
01-11-2017 01:35 PM
#301
| |
It's only vague because you fail to see it's not. | |
| |
01-11-2017 01:38 PM
#302
| |
"Vague" is an interesting word for you to throw out there. I mean it's subjective... what's vague for you might not be for me. So your assertion that it's "vague" only exposes your lack of clarity. | |
| |
01-11-2017 01:41 PM
#303
| |
01-11-2017 01:43 PM
#304
| |
| |
01-11-2017 01:48 PM
#305
| |
Any definition that includes two mutually exclusive possibilities is ill-defined. Whether you misinterpret that as clarity is a separate issue. | |
01-11-2017 01:48 PM
#306
| |
I mean I understand perfectly well that zero and infinity are polar opposites of the same coin. Much like time/space, energy/matter, electricty/magnetism etc. You think that it's vague to say the present is either zero seconds or infinite, I say it's only vague because you fail to grasp the point. A singularity is both zero and infinite, it just depends how you measure it. | |
| |
01-11-2017 01:49 PM
#307
| |
| |
01-11-2017 01:58 PM
#308
| |
That was where you lacked clarity, you mean. You assumed i knew a singularity could be both 0 or infinite. | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-11-2017 at 02:15 PM. | |
01-11-2017 02:27 PM
#309
| |
Past, present, or future is not the same for all observers; the order of events is not the same for all observers. | |
01-11-2017 02:35 PM
#310
| |
X [apples] has not ever been reproducibly observed to equal Y [oranges], yet. | |
01-11-2017 06:00 PM
#311
| |
| |
| |
01-11-2017 06:04 PM
#312
| |
ITT Ong tries to defend maths and ends up disproving it. | |
01-11-2017 06:08 PM
#313
| |
Maths can help me out. What's the sum of all the possible negative and positive numbers? | |
| |
01-11-2017 06:26 PM
#314
| |
| |
| |
01-11-2017 06:29 PM
#315
| |
| |
01-11-2017 06:38 PM
#316
| |
01-11-2017 06:40 PM
#317
| |
01-11-2017 08:00 PM
#318
| |
So alright, I'm bored of this now, I'll just pull out my trump card. | |
| |
01-12-2017 12:26 AM
#319
| |
|
0*. His many of the infinite infinite sums that don't sum to 0 would you like me to post? I could post 0 and you assume I posted infinite, proving you wrong. |
Last edited by Savy; 01-12-2017 at 12:31 AM. | |
01-12-2017 12:32 AM
#320
| |
|
Equating is a terrible use of word but my mind fails to think of the correct term. |
01-12-2017 04:25 AM
#321
| |
False. I'm claiming no-one can. Big difference. | |
01-12-2017 11:00 AM
#322
| |
To solidify ImSavy's answer, that sum is 0 due to the fact that, while there are an uncountable infinity of numbers between any 2 numbers, there is always exactly a 1:1 mapping of any negative value to its positive counterpart. This holds equally true for the Complex numbers. | |
01-12-2017 11:12 AM
#323
| |
You are defining infinity as identical to infinitely small. | |
01-12-2017 11:46 AM
#324
| |
01-12-2017 12:04 PM
#325
| |
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:04 PM
#326
| |
What is "it?" Are you certain it's the same it both times? | |
01-12-2017 12:05 PM
#327
| |
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:18 PM
#328
| |
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:29 PM
#329
| |
01-12-2017 12:30 PM
#330
| |
You're predicting that I can never know the future. That is a prediction about the future. | |
| |
01-12-2017 12:32 PM
#331
| |
Sort your paradox out while I sort out the problem of experiencing something a nanosecond after observing it. | |
| |
01-12-2017 12:33 PM
#332
| |
01-12-2017 12:34 PM
#333
| |
01-12-2017 12:36 PM
#334
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:37 PM
#335
| |
My paradox is not a paradox; you just fail (or refuse) to grasp it. | |
01-12-2017 12:38 PM
#336
| |
You're missing the point. Zero is infinitely small. Something that exists and has volume of >0 is not infinitely small. A singularity is infinitely small. It is zero is volume, that is why it is infinitely small. Because it is zero. Give it volume, and it is not infinitely small. | |
| |
01-12-2017 12:38 PM
#337
| |
01-12-2017 12:39 PM
#338
| |
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:40 PM
#339
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:41 PM
#340
| |
01-12-2017 12:43 PM
#341
| |
Of course there is infinitely small in mathematics. If there isn't, then it's a flaw in our understanding of mathematics. I have given an example of something that is infinitely small... a singularity. | |
| |
01-12-2017 12:43 PM
#342
| |
01-12-2017 12:46 PM
#343
| |
01-12-2017 12:46 PM
#344
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:47 PM
#345
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:47 PM
#346
| |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-12-2017 at 12:50 PM. | |
01-12-2017 12:48 PM
#347
| |
01-12-2017 12:49 PM
#348
| |
A singularity, by definition, has a volume of zero. | |
| |
01-12-2017 12:50 PM
#349
| |
| |
01-12-2017 12:51 PM
#350
| |
01-12-2017 12:51 PM
#351
| |
For example... | |
| |
01-12-2017 12:54 PM
#352
| |
Your argument is the same as... | |
| |
01-12-2017 12:56 PM
#353
| |
I'm going to trust the dictionary on this one as opposed to your non-expert opinion: | |
01-12-2017 12:58 PM
#354
| |
lol "appraoching zero". | |
| |
01-12-2017 01:00 PM
#355
| |
| |
01-12-2017 01:04 PM
#356
| |
I can only accept poop's position on infinity if he rejects the gravitational singularity as a viable concept in the universe. | |
| |
01-12-2017 01:08 PM
#357
| |
01-12-2017 01:09 PM
#358
| |
Wanna talk about your brain and your experience of 'the present' now? | |
01-12-2017 01:13 PM
#359
| |
I like to think Ong is online shopping for a maths text right now. | |
01-12-2017 01:16 PM
#360
| |
Maths won't tell me anything conclusive about infinity because it doesn't exist as a mathematical value, merely a mathematical outcome. The problem isn't maths, it's our understanding. I feel that your lack of understanding is more profound than mine because you're attempting to assign a value to infinity. | |
| |
01-12-2017 01:17 PM
#361
| |
| |
01-12-2017 01:23 PM
#362
| |
The problem is you're making up your own definition and sticking to it in the face of contrary evidence. That's not maths failing you, it's you failing maths. | |
01-12-2017 01:42 PM
#363
| |
I'm not wrong about >0 not being infinity. Where is the "infinitely small" line drawn? I can say it's 0.1, anything smaller is infinitely small. Obviously, that's a crock of shit, because 0.05 is not infinitely small. Any value greater than zero that you claim is "infinitely small" is not infinitely small. | |
| |
01-12-2017 01:49 PM
#364
| |
Actually, the problem is that you think infinitesimal means infinitely small. It doesn't. It's merely a quantity that we can't measure. | |
| |
01-12-2017 01:51 PM
#365
| |
The difference between infinitesiaml and infinitely small is that with better accuracy we could meaure something that we call "infinitesimal", at which point it ceases to be infinitesimal. Something infinitely small, for exmaple a singularity, will never be measured as having a value, because it has none. | |
| |
01-12-2017 01:53 PM
#366
| |
| |
| |
01-12-2017 02:02 PM
#367
| |
Honestly, go read something written by a mathematician and try to keep an open mind. I'm done repeating myself. | |
01-12-2017 02:17 PM
#368
| |
What the fuck would a mathematician know about infinity? He is bound by our flawed understanding of maths. I wanna talk to a philosopher. | |
| |
01-12-2017 02:26 PM
#369
| |
I can make another prediction about the future... | |
| |
01-12-2017 02:34 PM
#370
| |
I can also say that space will always exist. I can say this because "always" is a measure of time; it is infinite time, all of it. Time is a direct consequence of space, it is space. So as long as the word "always" has meaning, there is time, and therefore there is space. | |
| |
01-12-2017 02:42 PM
#371
| |
You can't argue against that one. We're talking about predicting the future, right? The future only exists in the context of space and time. Anything beyond the realm of spacetime is not the "future", and as such is an irrelevance to this discussion. | |
| |
01-12-2017 05:04 PM
#372
| |
Correct (at least at the time I was writing this). | |
Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-12-2017 at 05:49 PM. | |
01-12-2017 05:05 PM
#373
| |
01-12-2017 05:51 PM
#374
| |
| |
| |
01-12-2017 05:59 PM
#375
| |
By that logic we may someday be able to assign a value to infinity. | |