The religion of "no beginning".

[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.

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

Wow.

What?

What the fuck are you stumbling about?

If you don't even understand basic calculus you have no business here.

Do you actually think you can prove that there is such a thing as a real infinity?

How exactly would you do that?

With some imaginary mathematical scheme?

 

[beero1000]

Oh... Oh... Jesus Christ... I can't breathe... it's just too much...

 

[untermensche]

Oh... Oh... Jesus Christ... I can't breathe... it's just too much...

You are just too little.

You have not been able to explain yourself once in any encounter I have ever had with you.

As far as I am concerned you are some random moron I am stuck with.

You have no magic to turn infinity into something real.

 

[untermensche]

This is how the real world works.

Suppose you have a diamond and a way to slice it.

You could slice and slice and slice.

Very soon you have something the naked eye cannot see.

Then you can slice some more.

Soon you will have just two carbon atoms and can slice that.

Then you are done. You can slice no more and end up with two sections.

The world is finite. It is quantized. It has to be.

The idea of applying infinity to the real world is an absurdity.

 

[Kharakov]

The music of the spheres..

 

[untermensche]

It is strange what the religious believers in "no beginning" will do rather than even attempt to defend their delusions.

They make no points. Answer no questions put to them.

No different from any religious fundamentalist.

 

[Kharakov]

It is strange what the religious believers in "no beginning" will do rather than even attempt to defend their delusions.

They make no points. Answer no questions put to them.

No different from any religious fundamentalist.

I know. I totally agree with you about orbital mechanics. It's slightly more complicated (the math to describe it, and thus nature itself), but of course it's a more accurate representation of nature than something derived from manmade data acquisition devices like telescopes.

All I had to do to extract orbital data from time was introduce a resolution function, to simulate nature more accurately. I am not sure which of the following is closer to nature, perhaps you could tell us?


View attachment 14835View attachment 14836

 

[untermensche]

Have you ever heard of the word "pixel"?

Nothing about your little cartoon is infinite.

 

[Kharakov]

I know. I totally agree with you about orbital mechanics. It's slightly more complicated (the math to describe it, and thus nature itself), but of course it's a more accurate representation of nature than something derived from manmade data acquisition devices like telescopes.

All I had to do to extract orbital data from time was introduce a resolution function, to simulate nature more accurately. I am not sure which of the following is closer to nature, perhaps you could tell us?


View attachment 14835View attachment 14836

Have you ever heard of the word "pixel"?

Nothing about your little cartoon is infinite.

I know. It's an exact demonstration of the unterEarth-unterMoon unterSystem. I did have to write code to change from smooth orbit, to unterOrbits (because unterOrbits, like many things in nature, work better if you use unterOccam's razor).

 

[untermensche]

The unter-orbit is reality.

Smooth movement is a fantasy.

You somehow think just talking about infinity somehow creates one.

What a strange religion this religion of "no beginning".

 

[Kharakov]

I know. I totally agree with you about orbital mechanics. It's slightly more complicated (the math to describe it, and thus nature itself), but of course it's a more accurate representation of nature than something derived from manmade data acquisition devices like telescopes.

All I had to do to extract orbital data from time was introduce a resolution function, to simulate nature more accurately. I am not sure which of the following is closer to nature, perhaps you could tell us?


View attachment 14835View attachment 14836

Have you ever heard of the word "pixel"?

Nothing about your little cartoon is infinite.

I know. It's an exact demonstration of the unterEarth-unterMoon unterSystem. I did have to write code to change from smooth orbit, to unterOrbits (because unterOrbits, like many things in nature, work better if you use unterOccam's razor).

The unter-orbit is reality.

Smooth movement is a fantasy.

You somehow think just talking about infinity somehow creates one.

What a strange religion this religion of "no beginning".

Definitely. Which of the two orbit cartoons better approximates unterOrbits?

 

[untermensche]

What do you think you have demonstrated about infinity by merely claiming it is there?

You have demonstrated nothing.

You cannot demonstrate a real infinity is possible.

 

[Speakpigeon]

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.

Okay, good enough for me.

Still, it's a forum, referencing websites may help in supporting your explanations but it's not good enough all by itself, you still have to explain yourself to begin with, and I still don't see where it is you've explained your point, as you claim here to have done.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche holds the position that 'in the real world' a movement cannot be of zero length.

Anyone with any sense holds that position.

I am waiting for an answer to my question.

What is 1/infinity?

Why can't any of these self proclaimed mathematicians figure it out?

Is there an answer?

 

[beero1000]

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.

Okay, good enough for me.

Still, it's a forum, referencing websites may help in supporting your explanations but it's not good enough all by itself, you still have to explain yourself to begin with, and I still don't see where it is you've explained your point, as you claim here to have done.
EB

I thought post 525 was basically that explanation, just more condensed. Either way, hopefully it's clear now why he's wrong.

Untermensche holds the position that 'in the real world' a movement cannot be of zero length.

Anyone with any sense holds that position.

I am waiting for an answer to my question.

What is 1/infinity?

Why can't any of these self proclaimed mathematicians figure it out?

Is there an answer?

Infinity is not a real number, so 1/infinity is undefined. I can't wait to see what you do with that.

Also, you conspicuously cut out the remainder of the post that explains why you're wrong about 'basic calculus'. Of course, please feel free to continue lecturing the professional mathematician about it. You are certainly making a fool out of someone.

 

[untermensche]

Infinity is not a real number, so 1/infinity is undefined.

I totally agree.

Also, you conspicuously cut out the remainder of the post that explains why you're wrong about 'basic calculus'. Of course, please feel free to continue lecturing the professional mathematician about it. You are certainly making a fool out of someone.

Basic calculus does not become invalid because there is something else.

Like addition does not become invalid when other operations are invented.

 

[beero1000]

Infinity is not a real number, so 1/infinity is undefined.

I totally agree.

So WTF was the point of that?

Also, you conspicuously cut out the remainder of the post that explains why you're wrong about 'basic calculus'. Of course, please feel free to continue lecturing the professional mathematician about it. You are certainly making a fool out of someone.

Basic calculus does not become invalid because there is something else.

Like addition does not become invalid when other operations are invented.

Are you SURE you're not a bot?

 

[untermensche]

So WTF was the point of that?

The point of having you say infinity is not a real number?

 

[beero1000]

So WTF was the point of that?

The point of having you say infinity is not a real number?

So? You must have a point in there somewhere, it can't all be pill dispensing and being wrong about stuff.

 

[untermensche]

So WTF was the point of that?

The point of having you say infinity is not a real number?

So? You must have a point in there somewhere, it can't all be pill dispensing and being wrong about stuff.

Since my point is you can in no way apply infinity to the real world you will have to figure it out yourself.