The religion of "no beginning".

[untermensche]

Everyone who has argued against your claim is objecting to your assertions with your invalid conditions and giving good reasons why your claim fails....you ignore it all. You rinse and repeat.

Those that don't seem to be able to comprehend keep repeating the same bad arguments.

You have no arguments. Just bad opinions.

You refuse to answer one question.

You are a complete waste of time.

Why do you think infinity could be real?

Do you think it is possible to have an infinity of some very small thing in your hand?

Do you see it as a quantity?

Answer one question and prove you are not a waste of time.

 

[DBT]

Get a grip, man, you are losing it. That which has no beginning or end is not measurable. Nothing needs to traverse Eternity/Infinity for Eternity/Infinity to exist, just as nothing needs to traverse all time/space within our Universe for all time/space within our Universe to exist.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You do understand that according to the mathematics of infinite movement the smallest possible movement is 0?

Wrong.

Not that you'll admit that there's a difference, but it's the distinction between the  minimum and the  infimum.

From your  infimum link:

"Note that for finite, totally ordered sets the infimum and the minimum are equal."

So, there is or there isn't a difference. It depends.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Get a grip, man, you are losing it. That which has no beginning or end is not measurable. Nothing needs to traverse Eternity/Infinity for Eternity/Infinity to exist, just as nothing needs to traverse all time/space within our Universe for all time/space within our Universe to exist.

I know how infinity is described and defined.

But I am talking about the real world.

And having "no beginning" is not a real world concept.

It is not something possible in the real world.

It implies a completed infinity.

Again something that is not physically possible.

- - - Updated - - -

You do understand that according to the mathematics of infinite movement the smallest possible movement is 0?

Wrong.

Not that you'll admit that there's a difference, but it's the distinction between the  minimum and the  infimum.

From your  infimum link:

"Note that for finite, totally ordered sets the infimum and the minimum are equal."

So, there is or there isn't a difference. It depends.
EB

It does not matter what names the mathematicians give their imaginary creations.

They are not real.

And nobody can demonstrate they could be real.

 

[beero1000]

You do understand that according to the mathematics of infinite movement the smallest possible movement is 0?

Wrong.

Not that you'll admit that there's a difference, but it's the distinction between the  minimum and the  infimum.

From your  infimum link:

"Note that for finite, totally ordered sets the infimum and the minimum are equal."

So, there is or there isn't a difference. It depends.
EB

There are examples of classes of sets where the minimum and the maximum are always equal too. That's not the point here, and the distinction is still important. Specifically, um said:

You do understand that according to the mathematics of infinite movement the smallest possible movement is 0?

The 'reasoning' for this is because there is always a smaller movement, which is pretty much the classic example for making the distinction between min and inf. It's even the exact one they explicitly use in the introduction of the wiki page for  infimum:

For instance, the positive real numbers ℝ+ (not including 0) does not have a minimum, because any given element of ℝ+ could simply be divided in half resulting in a smaller number that is still in ℝ+. There is, however, exactly one infimum of the positive real numbers: 0, which is smaller than all the positive real numbers and greater than any other real number which could be used as a lower bound.

 

[untermensche]

You do understand that according to the mathematics of infinite movement the smallest possible movement is 0?

The 'reasoning' for this is because there is always a smaller movement, which is pretty much the classic example for making the distinction between min and inf. It's even the one they use in the introduction of the wiki page for  infimum:

Only in the imagination is there always a smaller movement.

In the real world there has to be a smallest possible movement. A movement that no smaller movement is possible.

Infinity is in no way a real world concept.

 

[beero1000]

You do understand that according to the mathematics of infinite movement the smallest possible movement is 0?

The 'reasoning' for this is because there is always a smaller movement, which is pretty much the classic example for making the distinction between min and inf. It's even the one they use in the introduction of the wiki page for  infimum:

Only in the imagination is there always a smaller movement.

In the real world there has to be a smallest possible movement. A movement that no smaller movement is possible.

Infinity is in no way a real world concept.

Yes, you've mentioned that before once or twice. Unfortunately, when you aren't just blindly asserting things without support, you're blindly asserting things that are wrong, and now you're going in circles. You should probably work on that.

 

[untermensche]

Only in the imagination is there always a smaller movement.

In the real world there has to be a smallest possible movement. A movement that no smaller movement is possible.

Infinity is in no way a real world concept.

Yes, you've mentioned that before once or twice. Unfortunately, when you aren't just blindly asserting things without support, you're blindly asserting things that are wrong, and now you're going in circles. You should probably work on that.

I suppose it is possible my assertions could be wrong but you have not shown them to be wrong in any way.

You can't even explain what you think infinity is. What you think it magically becomes when you work with it for a while.

So it is impossible your conception could be regarded as real.

You are like some others here. You refuse to answer one question.

What is 1/infinity?

Please show ALL your work as you reach an answer. No shortcuts. No assumptions. Work it out.

 

[Speakpigeon]

From your  infimum link:

"Note that for finite, totally ordered sets the infimum and the minimum are equal."

So, there is or there isn't a difference. It depends.
EB

There are examples of classes of sets where the minimum and the maximum are always equal too. That's not the point here, and the distinction is still important. Specifically, um said:

You do understand that according to the mathematics of infinite movement the smallest possible movement is 0?

The 'reasoning' for this is because there is always a smaller movement, which is pretty much the classic example for making the distinction between min and inf. It's even the exact one they explicitly use in the introduction of the wiki page for  infimum:

For instance, the positive real numbers ℝ+ (not including 0) does not have a minimum, because any given element of ℝ+ could simply be divided in half resulting in a smaller number that is still in ℝ+. There is, however, exactly one infimum of the positive real numbers: 0, which is smaller than all the positive real numbers and greater than any other real number which could be used as a lower bound.

Sure, but how does that helps?

That there is zero as infimum for R+ doesn't of course mean that there is anything like a smallest movement which would be different from zero. And if we regard zero as a movement, as we jolly well can, then zero is ipso facto the smallest movement.

It's all very well to show off your superior knowledge of mathematical subtleties but you'd need to explain how they are relevant. Something you don't do at all.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Zero is not a movement.

It is the absence of movement.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're making my heart bleed.

Go preach on a mountain. Should work.
EB

 

[untermensche]

You keep claiming I am the one preaching.

I don't think you understand what the word means.

You are not preaching. You are trying to sell me shit.

You think you can just say any stupid thing that enters your mind.

Like zero represents something positive.

 

[DBT]

I know how infinity is described and defined.

So why ask irrelevant questions while persistently ignoring what is being pointed out, that the necessity of something traversing infinity/eternity for infinity/eternity to be real is false?

 

[untermensche]

I know how infinity is described and defined.

So why ask irrelevant questions while persistently ignoring what is being pointed out, that the necessity of something traversing infinity/eternity for infinity/eternity to be real is false?

Time itself has traversed all of time.

Something traversed all of it.

Which means to those who can think it could not have been infinite.

An infinity cannot be traversed.

 

[Kharakov]

I know how infinity is described and defined.

So why ask irrelevant questions while persistently ignoring what is being pointed out, that the necessity of something traversing infinity/eternity for infinity/eternity to be real is false?

Someone has to be wrong on the internet.

 

[DBT]

I know how infinity is described and defined.

So why ask irrelevant questions while persistently ignoring what is being pointed out, that the necessity of something traversing infinity/eternity for infinity/eternity to be real is false?

Someone has to be wrong on the internet.

Apparently so. The world would be a different place without it. We can't have that....keep up the good work Mr Untermensche.

- - - Updated - - -

I know how infinity is described and defined.

So why ask irrelevant questions while persistently ignoring what is being pointed out, that the necessity of something traversing infinity/eternity for infinity/eternity to be real is false?

Time itself has traversed all of time.

Something traversed all of it.

Which means to those who can think it could not have been infinite.

An infinity cannot be traversed.

Time doesn't transverse itself.

 

[untermensche]

Time itself has traversed all of time.

Something traversed all of it.

Which means to those who can think it could not have been infinite.

An infinity cannot be traversed.

Time doesn't transverse itself.

Of course it does.

Time itself has existed for all of time. Pretty obvious.

If there is time that means there is change.

It is impossible for infinite changes to take place.

So obviously it is impossible infinite changes took place in the past.

No infinity is real. No infinity could be real.

 

[beero1000]

There are examples of classes of sets where the minimum and the maximum are always equal too. That's not the point here, and the distinction is still important. Specifically, um said:



The 'reasoning' for this is because there is always a smaller movement, which is pretty much the classic example for making the distinction between min and inf. It's even the exact one they explicitly use in the introduction of the wiki page for  infimum:

For instance, the positive real numbers ℝ+ (not including 0) does not have a minimum, because any given element of ℝ+ could simply be divided in half resulting in a smaller number that is still in ℝ+. There is, however, exactly one infimum of the positive real numbers: 0, which is smaller than all the positive real numbers and greater than any other real number which could be used as a lower bound.

Sure, but how does that helps?

That there is zero as infimum for R+ doesn't of course mean that there is anything like a smallest movement which would be different from zero. And if we regard zero as a movement, as we jolly well can, then zero is ipso facto the smallest movement.

Sure, you can define a zero length movement to be a movement, but that would be contrary to untermensche's entire argument and I doubt he would be up for that at all. So you can either be stuck at a stubborn definitional impasse or show why his argument is shit from within the argument itself.

It's all very well to show off your superior knowledge of mathematical subtleties but you'd need to explain how they are relevant. Something you don't do at all.
EB

And here I was, thinking that my previously posted explanation and two linked wikipedia pages would be sufficient. Apparently not, so here we go again:

Untermensche holds the position that 'in the real world' a movement cannot be of zero length. He is also of the opinion that mathematics says that because there is a smaller movement than every possible positive movement that that means that math concludes that the smallest possible movement has zero length, thus 'deriving' a contradiction between math and the real world.

I pointed out that this is wrong because, even if we accept that real movements are positive and that for every positive movement there is a smaller movement, it does not follow that the smallest possible movement has zero length.

That is because untermensche is mixing up the idea of a minimum (the smallest possible thing) with the infimum (the greatest lower bound). The infimum of all positive movements might have zero length, but that does not mean that is a movement, and we cannot say that it is the minimum movement.

 

[untermensche]

All I have said is basic calculus. That is where all this nonsense about smoothness and completed infinities comes from.

It is an imaginary system that has no connection to real entities.

It doesn't become untrue because you say so.

 

[beero1000]

All I have said is basic calculus. That is where all this nonsense about smoothness and completed infinities comes from.

It is an imaginary system that has no connection to real entities.

It doesn't become untrue because you say so.

Oh, that's just... I mean... but...

Wow.