Infinte Regress Timeline...

[untermensche]

Therein is your confusion. Infinite past means no beginning. It doesn't mean no end.

An infinite series is a series that has no end.

There are two types of infinite series. Those with a beginning and those without a beginning.

But no infinite series has an end.

If you say an infinite series finished you don't have a clue.

 

[untermensche]

This is still amusing.

You say an infinite series can end. This is in direct conflict with the definition of an infinite series.

An infinite series is defined as a series that doesn't end. It never has a finalized existence. It goes on forever.

Really?

How long is a series with an end, but no beginning?

There is no such series. An infinite series is either a series with no end that has a beginning or a series with no end that has no beginning.

You are talking nonsense.

How many negative integers are there? (Hint: the series ends with -1)

Ouch! The series of negative integers begins at negative one. It doesn't end there.

You should hide in shame.

 

[skepticalbip]

Therein is your confusion. Infinite past means no beginning. It doesn't mean no end.

An infinite series is a series that has no end.

There are two types of infinite series. Those with a beginning and those without a beginning.

But no infinite series has an end.

If you say an infinite series finished you don't have a clue.

Repeating you ignorance of infinity is just denial not an argument.

 

[beero1000]

And... we're back to Zeno.

Everyone does know that the formal definition of an infinite series does not involve any sort of 'completion' or iteration, right?

 

[untermensche]

An infinite series is a series that has no end.

There are two types of infinite series. Those with a beginning and those without a beginning.

But no infinite series has an end.

If you say an infinite series finished you don't have a clue.

Repeating you ignorance of infinity is just denial not an argument.

When posts are reduced to this you know the person posting them has no clue.

I repeat. No infinite series ends.

You can laugh like a child all you like. It won't change the definition of an infinite series.

 

[untermensche]

And... we're back to Zeno.

Everyone does know that the formal definition of an infinite series does not involve any sort of 'completion' or iteration, right?

Why don't you say what an infinite series is instead of what it isn't.

An infinite series is a series that is defined in such a way that the series has no end.

If we look at the infinite series of all fractions between 0 and 1 then it is defined as a series that has no lowest value and has no highest value. It ends nowhere. Being bound by 0 and 1 doesn't change that. There is no end to the series. Anywhere.

 

[Juma]

Repeating you ignorance of infinity is just denial not an argument.

When posts are reduced to this you know the person posting them has no clue.

I repeat. No infinite series ends.

You can laugh like a child all you like. It won't change the definition of an infinite series.

You are making a very basic mistake: time is no serie. But we can make a serie out of selected timepoints, say each timepoint a seconds distant from the previous.

But the infinite series is not necessarily indexed in the same order as it appears:
We can have a serie that starts with the timepoint when I started writin this post and then the second before that and then the second before that etc.
If time has always been going on then that will be an infinite serie.

Time itself is no serie.

 

[Juma]

And... we're back to Zeno.

Everyone does know that the formal definition of an infinite series does not involve any sort of 'completion' or iteration, right?

Why don't you say what an infinite series is instead of what it isn't.

An infinite series is a series that is defined in such a way that the series has no end.

If we look at the infinite series of all fractions between 0 and 1 then it is defined as a series that has no lowest value and has no highest value. It ends nowhere. Being bound by 0 and 1 doesn't change that. There is no end to the series. Anywhere.

Yest there are, even two ends: 0 and 1.

 

[PyramidHead]

How do you determine which part of a series unbounded on one side is the "end"?

 

[untermensche]

When posts are reduced to this you know the person posting them has no clue.

I repeat. No infinite series ends.

You can laugh like a child all you like. It won't change the definition of an infinite series.

You are making a very basic mistake: time is no serie. But we can make a serie out of selected timepoints, say each timepoint a seconds distant from the previous.

But the infinite series is not necessarily indexed in the same order as it appears:
We can have a serie that starts with the timepoint when I started writin this post and then the second before that and then the second before that etc.
If time has always been going on then that will be an infinite serie.

Time itself is no serie.

If you say the series of seconds before the previous second is an infinite series of seconds then it is an amount of seconds that has no end.

Saying "let's pretend the end occurred right before the previous second" is to directly contradict the idea of seconds without end as soon as you say it.

 

[Kharakov]

And... we're back to Zeno.

Everyone does know that the formal definition of an infinite series does not involve any sort of 'completion' or iteration, right?

Umm.. you've read the thread a bit. So I assume you may suspect that there are a few individuals who think that there are end points to infinity.

On another note, I've a question about an infinite series which I'll post in the math quiz thread....

 

[untermensche]

Why don't you say what an infinite series is instead of what it isn't.

An infinite series is a series that is defined in such a way that the series has no end.

If we look at the infinite series of all fractions between 0 and 1 then it is defined as a series that has no lowest value and has no highest value. It ends nowhere. Being bound by 0 and 1 doesn't change that. There is no end to the series. Anywhere.

Yest there are, even two ends: 0 and 1.

Neither is ever reached. Neither is an end.

 

[Juma]

Yest there are, even two ends: 0 and 1.

Neither is ever reached. Neither is an end.

They dont need to be reached to be ends.

 

[untermensche]

How do you determine which part of a series unbounded on one side is the "end"?

You don't. The bounded end is the beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither is ever reached. Neither is an end.

They dont need to be reached to be ends.

An end means the series ends.

 

[skepticalbip]

Repeating you ignorance of infinity is just denial not an argument.

When posts are reduced to this you know the person posting them has no clue.

I repeat. No infinite series ends.

You can laugh like a child all you like. It won't change the definition of an infinite series.

When confronted with someone who makes absurd statements based on nothing but misguided beliefs then what else is there to do but laugh?

I also laugh when some creationist will not accept that the Earth could be more than 6000 years old and goes through some convoluted "argument' to prove it.

 

[Juma]

You don't. The bounded end is the beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither is ever reached. Neither is an end.

They dont need to be reached to be ends.

An end means the series ends.

They are the ends if the set of the series.

And besides: excellent examples of infinite
series that passes in an finite distance.

 

[untermensche]

You don't. The bounded end is the beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither is ever reached. Neither is an end.

They dont need to be reached to be ends.

An end means the series ends.

They are the ends if the set of the series.

And besides: excellent examples of infinite
series that passes in an finite distance.

No besides. The series has no end. There is no highest member or lowest.

 

[untermensche]

When posts are reduced to this you know the person posting them has no clue.

I repeat. No infinite series ends.

You can laugh like a child all you like. It won't change the definition of an infinite series.

When confronted with someone who makes absurd statements based on nothing but misguided beliefs then what else is there to do but laugh?

I also laugh when some creationist will not accept that the Earth could be more than 6000 years old and goes through some convoluted "argument' to prove it.

So you don't know the difference between claiming the earth is 6000 years old and the claim that an infinite series is defined as a series without end?

You do know that you are allowed to produce arguments showing that an infinite series is not defined as a series without end?

 

[beero1000]

And... we're back to Zeno.

Everyone does know that the formal definition of an infinite series does not involve any sort of 'completion' or iteration, right?

Why don't you say what an infinite series is instead of what it isn't.

Because I (rather presciently, if I may say so myself) stopped actively engaging with you around 1400 posts ago when you claimed that the integers were a finite set. That, and the definition of a series is a basic part of first year calculus...

An infinite series is a series that is defined in such a way that the series has no end.

If we look at the infinite series of all fractions between 0 and 1 then it is defined as a series that has no lowest value and has no highest value. It ends nowhere. Being bound by 0 and 1 doesn't change that. There is no end to the series. Anywhere.

That is nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

Why don't you say what an infinite series is instead of what it isn't.

Because I (rather presciently, if I may say so myself) stopped actively engaging with you around 1400 posts ago when you claimed that the integers were a finite set. That, and the definition of a series is a basic part of first year calculus...

Never claimed it.

An infinite series is a series that is defined in such a way that the series has no end.

If we look at the infinite series of all fractions between 0 and 1 then it is defined as a series that has no lowest value and has no highest value. It ends nowhere. Being bound by 0 and 1 doesn't change that. There is no end to the series. Anywhere.

That is nonsense.

You can define the truth as nonsense of you like.

But putting labels on the truth isn't an argument.