Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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):

Wednesday, May 14, 05:21:49pm

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

Subject: Oh yeah! Kool Aid for everyone! Author: Wade A. Tisthammer [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 04/11/04 9:48pm In reply to: damoclese 's message, "and oh yeah" on 04/ 8/04 10:51am >> >>There is logic. Let f(x) = x for when the years add >>on. >> >>lim [ x ] = No Limit >>x > �� >> >>Which means it doesn't approach any finite number. 1 >>years, 2 years, 3, 4... goes on without limit. > >You can define the problem however you wish. That's my >point. > >Let x equal the amount of years gone by starting with >zero and allowing the rest of the years to climb >infinitely decimally. In other words, any particular >year that has gone by can all be represented by a >corresponding finite decimal value of x. Year 1 = >.0000345 and so on. >f(x) = x > > Lim of x = 1 >x < 1. > > Why should we do it this way? Why shouldn't we? Because it's not an accurate representation of the problem. As the number of years goes to infinity, we approach an infinite number of years. The limit obviously can't be one year for instance, as the passage of two years would easily destroy that conjecture entirely. The limit is not 28,986 years either, since more years can be added to that as well. In any case, none of this explains which premise is false and why, and the soundness of the argument would still appear to be intact. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Assuming Damoclese 04/12/04 8:25am Infinity. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/12/04 10:25am heh -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 11:14am Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/12/04 4:47pm "one" -- Damoclese, 04/12/04 6:56pm Two -- Wade A. Tishtammer, 04/14/04 1:06pm What's good for the goose -- Damoclese, 04/14/04 5:04pm What other alternatives are there? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:37am Ganders -- Damoclese, 04/15/04 5:36pm Why abandon logic? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/04 12:14pm Hiatus over -- Damoclese, 04/28/04 6:53pm Illogical to abandon logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/29/04 12:47pm what a bounty -- Damoclese, 04/29/04 2:25pm Of logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 2/04 3:11pm of intuition -- Damoclese, 05/ 4/04 10:51am Of more logic. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 7/04 2:25pm One mistake... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/04 11:40am