There’s a difference between “natural numbers” (or “counting numbers”) and “whole numbers”, that’s not too important to what Magnus was arguing. Magnus was arguing that NULL is not a mathematical variable to attempt to “prove” that all infinite series are not the same size!
I’d like to see another argument from him to this regard.
Decimal notation. Whole numbers over one, and fractions of 1 over a whole number.
We all know 1/2 of 1 is one half, 1/2 of 1/2 is 1/4, and 1/2 of 1/4 is 1/8… 1/2 is larger than 1/4 which is larger than 1/8, 1/8 is larger than 1/16 which is larger that 1/32, which is larger than 1/64, 1/64 is larger than 1/128. 1.5 is larger than 3/4 but it is half of 1.5.
1/9 is larger than 1/99 which is larger that 1/999.
[attachment=0]999999.png[/attachment]
I may live in my own little world but decimal notation says there are no 1’s in .9 recurring, some of you may be forgetting that 0.9 recurring is another way of saying 10/9 recurring. But I could be wrong…
Is 1.0 = 10/9 recurring?
I propose that any of the digits 0 - 9 in a base-ten system repeated infinitely isn’t a number. But I would venture the thought that any digit recurring over itself recurring is 1.
I would also agree with Magnus that 1/3 is not equal to .3 recurring. It is unresolved in a recurrence, at best, it is as close as a base-10 system allows you to get without being equal. When a recurrence shows up it is telling you it is not equal.
It either equals null or zero, take your pick. At this point, you’re arguing for the sake of arguing, you stopped using mathematical arguments. Your argument is psychosis, no bearing on reality. You want so desperately for there to be orders of infinity, that you have ceased rational discussion.
and yes, N and “2N” are equal in value, what so many people have tried to explain to you, is that you CANNOT use operators on infinity!!
At what point does the sequence terminate? Sure N and 2N have different values, but ONLY in termination, infinity does not terminate though, and so many people in this thread keep trying to explain that to you.
This invites a kind of meta-discussion – a discussion about discussion.
The following isn’t specifically directed at you, so you can safely ignore it, but if you want, you’re welcome to take it in and bake a response for it.
You can interact with people in a large number of ways – indeed, an infinite number of ways, a pretty large infinite number of ways (: – and each one of these ways have certain consequences; and each set of consequences can be compared to every other in order to determine the most preferrable one.
If, for example, you want to be respectful, I believe you absolutely must abide by the rule that says “Make sure that the other person wants to hear what you have to say”. Just in case, I will repeat, you don’t have to be respectful to other people, you act as you see fit, but if you want to be respectful, I believe that’s the way to go.
If you think it’s fruitless to have a discussion with me, that’s fine, and you’re absolutely free to act in accordance with that belief, by say, not trying to explain stuff to me. But by telling me things I don’t want to hear – e.g. that you think that I’m arguing for the sake of arguing, that I stopped making valid arguments, etc – you are being disrespectful. The question is: do you really want to be disrespectful?
And then there’s the general question of the extent to which it is useful to talk to people when they don’t want to listen to you or when they don’t want to listen to what you have to say.
If you think you can educate people that way, make them more intelligent, more capable in life, I don’t think that’s the way to go. Forcing people to do things against their will can certainly make them do things you want them to do but at the cost of becoming confused.
Let that be the end of this meta-discussion.
Let us return to the subject.
I don’t know what it means that N and 2N are equal in value. N and 2N are symbols representing the set of natural numbers and the set of even natural numbers, respectively. You are surely not saying that N and 2N are equal sets i.e. that they have the same elements?
You don’t even understand this discussion. That’s not on you, but on me.
Like I say “everyone is a genius, if you don’t understand something, it either wasn’t explained simply enough or there’s nothing to understand in the first place”
I played with Adobe Illustrator 88. You could crash the program by folding a segment of a line parallel to itself. The stroke cast was infinite. Sent the computer into a recurring loop, attempting to calculate where the parallel lines of the stroke width would converge. Never, and that caused some problems for a graphics program. So how many radial degrees of one will a computer program resolve too… a ridiculously more number of decimal points then were required to fly a man to the moon. But back then they had just 8 bits to work with.