I don't think they did. -- Ben's Message Board

[ 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, May 13, 02:07:16am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: I don't think they did.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 03/15/04 12:07pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Everyone nearly said as much" on 03/14/04 4:01pm

>>
>>A(1) == B(2)
>>A(2) == B(3)
>>A(3) == B(4)
>>A(4) == B(5)
>
>This is pretty much what I said before.

Where?

>You are simply
>starting the B set rather arbitrarily at two. You
>could just as easily start the B set at one, or zero,
>or anything you pleased. (it wouldn't matter, because
>within infinity all the starting places would be
>equal; that is to say none of them would stand out as
>logical places to start)

True enough.

>This isn't really that much different than what I
>saying concerning where one started counting years.

Well, I have to disagree. In this case I was specifically mentioning the structure of the sub-argument (an argument that led to a crucial premise for the end conclusion) and its conclusion from it, using a clear counterexample to refute it. The matter of where one started counting years had to do with a simple labeling scheme. The number in which one started (i.e. labeled "year 1") was somewhat arbitrary and didn't really affect the deductive validity of this particular argument.

>Infinity when dealing with finite numbers in this
>particular example could yield a finishing or an
>infinitely far behind Shandy, which only goes to show
>that something has gone wrong in the formulation of
>the problem in the first place.

How is it "dealing with finite numbers"? In any case, the last sentence is not quite the case if the first premise in the revised version of the argument is correct.

If one were to attack the revised argument, the weakest point would perhaps be the first premise (which IIRC I have yet to see anyone clearly attack in this message board or any other premise for that matter, ironically), though there does not appear to be any clear reason to reject it. In the revised version, the most important thing to remember that the only way to reject the conclusion is to reject the at least one of the premises, since the only way this argument can fail is if the premises fail.

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
You're right.	Damoclese	03/15/04 4:55pm