I can only ask you about the "3" YOU see.
It would be absolute stupidity to think I was talking about the "3" I see.
The "3" you see is not a string on it's own.
That is nonsense.
You are waving your arms.
"3" is nothing but "3" unless we imbibe some meaning into it.
You claimed it was a string.
Will you admit you were mistaken so this can go forward?
You are waving your arms.
"3" is nothing but "3" unless we imbibe some meaning into it.
You claimed it was a string.
Will you admit you were mistaken so this can go forward?
It is a string. On a more basic level also a sequence of 0s and 1s, and a pattern of dark and light pixels.
Just like "0.333...".
As a string, it has 1 digit, while "0.333..." has eight digits.
Within the scheme of decimal notation, one refers to 3/1 while the other refers to 1/3.
It is not a string. It is a pattern. That is true.
Just like "0.333...".
That is some other thing. I am talking about "3".
It is not a string. It is a pattern. That is true.
Just like "0.333...".
That is some other thing. I am talking about "3".
That's not "some other thing". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
That's not "some other thing". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
How exactly is it the same thing?
That's not "some other thing". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
How exactly is it the same thing?
They're both patterns of dark and light pixels, the way I see them. What's to stop us from imbibing one with the meaning 1/3 when we are apparently free to imbibe the other with the meaning 3/1?
They're both patterns of dark and light pixels, the way I see them. What's to stop us from imbibing one with the meaning 1/3 when we are apparently free to imbibe the other with the meaning 3/1?
But they are different patterns.
Just being a pattern isn't sufficient to describe "3".
"3" is a specific pattern.
They're both patterns of dark and light pixels, the way I see them. What's to stop us from imbibing one with the meaning 1/3 when we are apparently free to imbibe the other with the meaning 3/1?
But they are different patterns.
Just being a pattern isn't sufficient to describe "3".
"3" is a specific pattern.
That doesn't stop us from imbibing either with any meaning we want it to have.
It certainly doesn't make it so that the meaning one of them has within a specific representational scheme "doesn't have a last digit" or is "undefined" or lacks a "final value".
That doesn't stop us from imbibing either with any meaning we want it to have.
This is besides any point.
We are examining what "3" is.
It is a pattern. A specific pattern.
It certainly doesn't make it so that the meaning one of them has within a specific representational scheme "doesn't have a last digit" or is "undefined" or lacks a "final value".
If 0.333 is a value and 0.3333 is a different value that means withing the scheme adding a specific pattern changes the value.
If you have an equation that has a product defined as 0.333.... meaning it is a repetition of a specific pattern without the possibility of end then it cannot have a final value by definition.
And subject to the same rules other patterns are subject to. Come on what's wrong with you? It's four in the morning where I live, and yet I'm more capable of logical thought than you are at any time of the day. Are you like permanently drunk? And by "drunk", I don't mean six beers. I've had six beers (come on, it's four in the morning on a Friday night, what were you thinking?).
Simple equivocation: just because the string representation doesn't end (unless employing ellipsis - you've yet to produce a reason why that's not legitimate), it doesn't mean the value isn't defined.
And failure to understand that 0.333..., within any scheme within which it is defined, has very little to do with 0.333 or 0.3333.
It may show that adding a "3" changes the value. It tells you nothing about what adding "..." does.A pattern is not subject to any rules.
The string is defined with an endless rule.
The definition specifically says there is no final pattern, no final value.
And failure to understand that 0.333..., within any scheme within which it is defined, has very little to do with 0.333 or 0.3333.
What 0.333 and 0.3333 shows is that when you add a pattern you change the value.
That is all they show.
Are you saying they don't show that?
Are you saying they are still the same value even though a pattern has been added?
Adding a pattern changes the value.
A rule that says add a pattern without end changes the value without end.
So "3" is no longer a pattern?
I thought you were getting somewhere.
So "3" is no longer a pattern?
I thought you were getting somewhere.
We're going to get somewhere as soon as you:
a) realise that "X refers to Y" and "X doesn't refer to anything" are contradictory,
b) answer my question about Georgia being in Eurasia without asking for clarification,
c) answer my question whether "a dog is a monosyllabic furry English animal with four legs and an initial voiced plosive" makes sense to you,
d) answer bilby's challenge.
Unfortunately this is not related to anything.
What I say is "3" is a symbol that within a predefined value scheme can have an abstract value assigned to it.
It has nothing else within that scheme.
And it is not referring to any other scheme.
b) answer my question about Georgia being in Eurasia without asking for clarification,
Hand waving diversion that has nothing to do with anything.
c) answer my question whether "a dog is a monosyllabic furry English animal with four legs and an initial voiced plosive" makes sense to you,
More total nonsense that has no relation to anything.
d) answer bilby's challenge.
It is not a challenge it is a diversion and an admission you have no rational reply.
If 0.333 has one value and 0.3333 has a different value then it has to follow that 0.333... has no final value.
All you have to do to prove it has a final value is prove it has a final "3".
What I say is "3" is a symbol that within a predefined value scheme can have an abstract value assigned to it.
It has nothing else within that scheme.
And it is not referring to any other scheme.
I get it already you're saying that.
If 0.333 has one value and 0.3333 has a different value then it has to follow that 0.333... has no final value.
All you have to do to prove it has a final value is prove it has a final "3".
That makes every bit as much sense as saying "3.5 has three characters, 4 has one; it follows 3.5 is the larger number". You're still confusing the map and the landscape.
So then you agree. 0.3333.... points to an arbitrary value within a value scheme.
It is nothing else within that scheme.
And it is not pointing to any other scheme.
In other words it points to a value within ONE scheme and nothing else.
Converting it into some other form is not what it is.
Looking at an equation that creates it is not referring to it.
If 0.333 has one value and 0.3333 has a different value then it has to follow that 0.333... has no final value.
All you have to do to prove it has a final value is prove it has a final "3".
That makes every bit as much sense as saying "3.5 has three characters, 4 has one; it follows 3.5 is the larger number". You're still confusing the map and the landscape.
No. It makes as much sense as saying 3.5 has one value and 3.55 has a different value. Or saying 4 has one value and 4.1 has a different value.
All it is saying is if a digit is added the value changes. "Value" What the thing signifies.
And you have no answer for that.
