Moderator: Flannel Jesus
promethean75 wrote:little help here would be nice, fellas.
obsrvr524 wrote:promethean75 wrote:little help here would be nice, fellas.
Asking the insane to bring sanity to the insanity?
and what are you hoping to realise from it?
obsrvr524 wrote:Did you want to pickup where we left off?
If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.
Silhouette wrote:May I query this explanation?
Silhouette wrote:Does "You are not adding to the set. You add to your position within the set" mean something like the following:
Infinite set represented as: {..., x, y, z, ...}
Add 1 at position y:
New set looks like: {... x, y+1, z, ...}
??
Silhouette wrote:Agreement or disagreement for each point - as you requested.
obsrvr524 wrote:You completely ignored the advice.
You completely ignored the question that I asked.
Silhouette wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.
The reason I ask is that this all comes back to that "infA[1] + infA[2] = 2 * infA" that you're insisting I "missed". And we can work back from there.
obsrvr524 wrote:Although tempted to go into a long detailed discussion of why you were so predictable (there is a little Kim Jong-un dominating your mind), we weren't done with your last batch of debacles and here you divert to a new plethora of fallacies and then complain that your new distraction has been ignored.
Silhouette wrote:literal psychological projection on your part - confirmed.
Silhouette wrote:the null hypothesis that you intended only to waste both our time is confirmed.
I'll file this away, along with you having nothing to offer with regard to alleged mistakes that I have made, which I've repeatedly asked you to disclose in spite of all your efforts to claim I'm not interested in this, reinforcing my classification of you as a fallacious, disingenuous and slanderous thinker, compromised by your political affiliations and their routine oppositional stereotyping.
Silhouette wrote:The motion that you have nothing is carried.
obsrvr524 wrote:I was actually hoping to get into some political discussions but I quickly discovered that same symptom on this board is as bad, if not worse, concerning politics.
obsrvr524 wrote:it takes a great deal of effort to try to see the world from another person's perspective just to ensure that you are not mis interpreting what they are trying to say. What was their environment? Who were they speaking or writing to? What were they trying to accomplish? What words did they use? What references? And finally, what did they really intend to relay to their audience at that time? And that isn't even getting into who the person really was all about.
obsrvr524 wrote:"presumption is the seed of all sin." So in that regard I guess we actually we agree.
Silhouette wrote:And why bring politics and association fallacies or any other red herrings into it at all?
Arguments either hold or don't hold completely irrespective of their author and anyone's emotions.
obsrvr524 wrote:here you divert to a new plethora of fallacies
I don't understand what you mean by "we wouldn't be able to say it".
Time is entirely a mind-made invention, as is counting.
promethean75 wrote:i've always figured that time and space were infinite, but not necessarily energy. one problem i'm up against here though is explaining how, if space is infinite, energy wouldn't also be infinite if it's necessary that all space be 'filled' with objects. james is clearly espousing a 'field' theory of space which at a fundamental level means all space is occupied by something. so i'm almost forced to admit that energy is infinite unless i can conceive of a boundary to space. but that wouldn't make any sense because there'd be something beyond that boundary... and wtf would i call it if not more space?
surreptitious75 wrote:I think that it is more logical that space and time have always existed because quantum mechanics forbids non existence
An absolute vacuum at the quantum level is too unstable to survive which is why quantum fluctuations violate it so easily
MagsJ wrote:Shame you'll be off when your parsing program ends, obsrvr524.. what are your plans for the research data? and what are you hoping to realise from it?
promethean75 wrote:and what are you hoping to realise from it?
i got this, 524.
he hopes to realize an infinitely affectant ontology of SAMs.
did i nail it or did i nail it, 524?
Silhouette wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:Did you want to pickup where we left off?
If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.Silhouette wrote:May I query this explanation?
= "I disagree"
as you asked me to say if I don't agree.
Silhouette wrote:Does "You are not adding to the set. You add to your position within the set" mean something like the following:
Infinite set represented as: {..., x, y, z, ...}
Add 1 at position y:
New set looks like: {... x, y+1, z, ...}
??
obsrvr524 wrote: do you agree with the correction that I pointed out?
This one:obsrvr524 wrote:Silhoutte wrote: but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.
And that is where you screwed up this time.
After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.
When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.
If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.
It would save a whole lot of wall paper.
obsrvr524 wrote:My question pertained to multiplying numeric sets. I have posted it twice. You have ignored it now twice. Then, as predicted, tried to change the subject.
obsrvr524 wrote:"May I query this explanation?" does NOT equate to "I disagree". If anything it would be "May I query into THAT explanation (learn the difference - "this here" vs "that there"). But in reality you merely chose to argue about a different subject:
obsrvr524 wrote:I said that you add 1 to your position. I did not say that you add 1 to the value that is at your position. So more like this:Infinite set represented as: {..., x, Y, z, ...}
Add 1 TO position y:
New set looks like: {... x, y, Z, ...}
obsrvr524 wrote:you still haven't addressed the issue of your lack of adding the subtotals in order to get the proper product of multiplied sets infA * infA = InfA^2
obsrvr524 wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:Silhoutte wrote: but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.
And that is where you screwed up this time.
After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.
When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.
If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.
It would save a whole lot of wall paper.
obsrvr524 wrote: do you agree with the correction that I pointed out?
This one:obsrvr524 wrote:Silhoutte wrote: but this would also continue you on the same infinite addition (1+1+1+...) however you structure your approach.
And that is where you screwed up this time.
After your first sequence you had one infA derived as the product. After the second sequence you had another infA derived. And after each of the following infinity of sequences, you will have another infA.
When you sum those products, as you must do but didn't, you get infA * infA = infA^2.
If you don't agree, simply say, "I disagree". If you have a simple reason, state it and ask for agreement. If the reason is complex, state only the beginning of it and ask if I agree.
It would save a whole lot of wall paper.
obsrvr524 wrote:And are you trying to say that you did properly sum the products?
Silhouette wrote:obsrvr524 wrote:And are you trying to say that you did properly sum the products?
Why is it so hard to read what I'm saying
Silhouette wrote:To be clear what I'm answering, I'm assuming that by "Sum the products", you mean in calculating (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), yes?
Silhouette wrote:In full answer, in case you're trying to trick me:
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is FINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)^2
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is INFINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)
Silhouette wrote:In both cases I have properly performed the calculation and did not make the mistake you thought I made.
Silhouette wrote:To also clarify just in case, for the sum of: (1+1+1+...+1) + (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is INFINITE, I used one method of adding term by term to get (2+2+2+...+2)
Silhouette wrote:Hilbert's Hotel was set up nearly 100 years ago to visualise these exact kinds of paradoxes when dealing with infinity
obsrvr524 wrote:To multiply two serialized sums, you take the first number from the first set and multiply it times the entire second set. In James' case, that would have been:
1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[1]
Then you take the next number in the first set, do the same thing, and add to the previous solution:
1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[2]
infA[1] + infA[2] = 2 * infA
Then you take the next number in the first set, do the same thing, and add to the previous solution:
1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[3]
infA[1] + infA[2] + infA[3] = 3 * infA
And you keep doing that, in this case infinitely, yielding:
infA[1] + infA[2] + infA[3] + .... = infA * infA = infA^2
I have always said you can’t speak of all numbers, because there’s no such thing as ‘all numbers’. - Wittgenstein
“The infinite number series is only the infinite possibility of finiteseries of numbers. It is senseless to speak of the whole infinite number series, as if it, too, were an extension”: in fact, the main problem with Transfinite Set Theory is that, through its use of abstract symbolic notation, it conflagrates intensions with extensions – thus reifying mathematical objects that simply do not exist. A ‘set’ is nothing more than an abstract symbol for a list (‘extension’) generated by a rule (‘intension’). In the case of a transfinite set, then, the ‘infinite’intension is simply a recursive rule for calculating certain kinds of results – one that does not have an ‘and then stop’ at the end. However, while the rule may not have a proper end, the extension cannot be considered infinite simply because the extension is precisely only what we have written down on the list, what we have calculated ; the law yields only the endless process, not the endless extension.
For example, the ‘set of all even numbers’ is constructed by the recursive rule ‘add 2’
ad nauseam. Its proper extension is an enumeration: a list such as {2, 4, 6, 8, 10, ...}. This ‘set of all even numbers’ is not an actually infinite extension; we could symbolize this set as ‘&’ but this would still not also constitute an actual infinite set – although we might delude ourselves into thinking it was if it was presented to us as a true premise in an argument that otherwise works. Seen through this example, it is easy to see how describing ‘types’ of ‘infinity’ with abstract symbolic notation deludes us into thinking that we have arrived at an actual infinite extension when in reality there are “only finite mathematical extensions”. The law is the potentially infinite series, but that doesn’t mean that there is an actually infinite series; nothing in the actual extension/list/enumeration has so far been ‘revealed’ to be actually infinite – all we have is a recursive intension/rule/law.
promethean75 wrote:he was a rastafarian. why? you don't think rastafarians do honest philosophy? omg that's so ad hominem.
I don't think that philosophy should be a product of ad hom. But reputation IS ad hom. If you say that because he has such a strong reputation he should be believed (which you have done) then you have already invoked an ad hom argument, merely in his favor rather than against him.
promethean75 wrote:if you aren't big on the analytical tradition and its history
obsrvr524 wrote:MagsJ wrote:Shame you'll be off when your parsing program ends, obsrvr524.. what are your plans for the research data? and what are you hoping to realise from it?
Thank you for your cordialness.
Every man needs a hobby. I have a family so I don't get much hobby time. Actually, I have 3 families; mine, my wife's, and my wife's former sister-in-law's (long sorted story). Between the kids, parents, grand parents, and politics there isn't much room to stabilize a consistent hobby, so I just choose random projects and see how far I can go with it. I was in the midst of choosing another project when I was reminded of "affectance" and the infamous James S Saint. So I looked to see if I could find him and do a personality research dossier. And here I am swimming through reams of thoughts and exploring the depths and breaths. Everyone should do that to another person sometime (if they learn to be responsible about it). An older relative would probably be best. It's better than collecting stamps or watching the political news.
I don't really know what I will do with the data. I enjoyed professionally collecting and correlating such, but it's different now. So I'm not sure how far I'll take it, nor where or when it will end. It wouldn't be the first time I just tucked a completed project away in a bin, long to ever be seen again.
promethean75 wrote:and what are you hoping to realise from it?
i got this, 524.
he hopes to realize an infinitely affectant ontology of SAMs.
did i nail it or did i nail it, 524?
Even if I knew what that meant, I'm pretty sure that I'm not there yet.
obsrvr524 wrote:Silhouette wrote:At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is FINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)^2
At every step so far in this discussion I have calculated (1+1+1+...+1) * (1+1+1+...+1), where "..." is INFINITE as (1+1+1+...+1)
I showed you a pretty simple rule to follow. The question is, "why do you think that the rule has to change just because you no longer can see the end of the chain?"
obsrvr524 wrote:Because 3 times now [make it 4 times now] I have asked for the very simple conformation, "I disagree" but you insist on the obfuscating tactic of dodging and trying to rewrite the narrative.
I explained your 3rd grade issue with this:obsrvr524 wrote:To multiply two serialized sums, you take the first number from the first set and multiply it times the entire second set. In James' case, that would have been:
1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[1]
Then you take the next number in the first set, do the same thing, and add to the previous solution:
1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[2]
infA[1] + infA[2] = 2 * infA
Then you take the next number in the first set, do the same thing, and add to the previous solution:
1 x (1+1+1...+1) = infA[3]
infA[1] + infA[2] + infA[3] = 3 * infA
And you keep doing that, in this case infinitely, yielding:
infA[1] + infA[2] + infA[3] + .... = infA * infA = infA^2
Simple question
Simple Question
SIMPLE QUESTION:
What is the first line in that explanation, given long ago, that you see to be in error?
Return to Science, Technology, and Math
Users browsing this forum: No registered users