VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Tuesday, April 29, 11:05:11pmLogin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234[5]678910 ]
Subject: Wade A. Tisthammer


Author:
I finally respond.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 09/12/04 6:04pm
In reply to: Duane 's message, "Finally.... Tristam meets his doom.... (bleah)" on 08/31/04 5:56am

I haven't looked into Ben's message board in a while, but here I am.

>Wade:
>
>Ugh. I've been on-and-off thinking about this, and I
>think I've finally located a deficiency in the
>argument. The deficiency is mathematical in nature,
>and I'll get to it, but first I wanted to bring
>something up:
>
>I've read most of your and Damocles's dialogue about
>this, and I've noticed that some of it focuses on
>"absurdity."
>
>
>>Wade said:
>>Is it? You be the judge. The essence of the argument
>is >that an infinite past implies an absurdity and
>therefore >cannot be correct.
>
>
>You of all people should recognize that "absurdity"
>does not equal disproof. "Absurd" means that you
>can't understand it.

No, absurd means ridiculously unreasonable, irrational, unsound etc.



>In doing some background reading, I came across the
>original statement of the paradox - Bertrand Russell
>was just trying to illustrate interesting properties
>of infinite sets. These other people then grepped his
>paradox, and wove this tangled web of crap around it,
>claiming they'd "disproven" an infinite past just
>because they can't seem to understand elementary set
>theory.

There is nothing about elementary set theory that affects the premises of my argument.


>So enough of this. On to the math.
>
>=======================================================
>== The Math Part ======================================
>=======================================================
>
>>Wade Said:
>>Because the above is a deductive argument, it can
>fail in >only one of two ways. Either the argument is
>invalid (i.e. >the conclusion does not logically
>follow from the premises) >or at least one of the
>premises is incorrect.
>
>
>The reason why Wade's paradox is incorrect is that his
>first premise is false. It's not egregiously false,
>just subtly wrong. Let's look at it.
>
>
>> 1. There is a one-to-one correspondence between
>years >passed and days passed.
>
>False.

No, it is true. I have demonstrated this.


>Here's why.
>
>Functions are simply a mapping of the elements of one
>set to the elements of another. "One-to-one
>correspondence" is a specific class of function.
>
>First, let's be clear about what is meant by "one to
>one correspondence." 1-1 correspondence is formally
>referred to as "bijection." It means that every
>element in set A maps to a single element in set B,
>that no two elements in A map to the same element in
>B, and that every element in B is "mapped to" by an
>element of A.

This is true, and I have demonstrated that it applies here:

Day 1 with year 1
Day 2 with year 2
Day 3 with year 3
etc.

Besides, you're not at all referring to my current revised version of the argument. My first premise was:


  1. If an infinite past is metaphysically possible, then Shandy writing his autobiography for as long as time has existed should not lead to absurdities.




>The "paradox" comes from this fact:

No it doesn't. You are using a non-current version of my argument.

>2 different infinite sets are numerically equivalent -
>they contain the same number of elements (infinity!).
>
>BUT!!! There may exist elements in one set that do
>not correspond to elements in the second set.

Not necessarily the case here, as I've shown.

Day 1 to Year 1
Day 2 to Year 2

etc.


>Huh? How is that possible? They have the same number
>of elements, but one has "more" than the other? The
>short (and correct) answer is: YES
>
>This is an axiomatic property of infinite sets. It
>arises from an interesting property of infinity - that
>infinity = infinity.

That's actually not quite true. Infinity - infinity = [answer] has, literally, an infinite number of possible answers.


>So Wade's first premise is wrong.

"Wade's" premise you are referring to does not exist in the current version.


>Here's the correct
>statement:
>
>1) There exists a one-to-one function that maps the
>elements of Y to the elements of D
>
>2) There exist elements of D that are not mapped to by
>any element of Y

Not necessarily the case, as I've shown. Challenge: give me one that doesn't have a correspondence.

>3) Therefore, there exist "days" that Tristam has not
>written about, and so he will never finish.
>
>So let's, in light of the above, look at more of what
>Wade says.
>
>>Wade Said:
>>One could deny the existence of the one-to-one
>>correspondence between years passed and days passed
>(the >first premise), but that too is ridiculous since
>we can >easily prove otherwise given an infinite
>number of years >and an infinite number of days (for
>each day that has >passed there exists a different
>year that has passed, and >vice versa).
>
>Clearly, we've seen that this is not the case. There
>exist, even assuming an infinite number of elements in
>D, elements of D that do not correspond to an element
>of Y.

Give me one specific element of D and I will be happy to show you a corresponding element.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.