| Subject: Assuming |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/12/04 8:25am
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Oh yeah! Kool Aid for everyone!" on 04/11/04 9:48pm
>>
>> Why should we do it this way? Why shouldn't we?
>
>Because it's not an accurate representation of the
>problem.
Bull. That of course, has been the subject of debate.
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 one doesn't necessarily mean one year. It means one (insert whatever follows an infinite sucession here) It should be pointed out though that it COULD be one year, because there is nothing to prevent an infinite succession of something to converge on one year or one whatever you want to call it. That's the entire point of my argument. There is no reason to accept your argument as the way infinitiy would behave. YOUR argument is not an accurate representation of the problem, because we don't even understand what the problem means in the first place. It's one of many INTERPRETATIONS.
The limit is not 28,986 years
>either, since more years can be added to that as well.
They could, but of course, simply because something could be added to something doesn't make it any less of a limit. If the limit of something is one mile, theoretically more miles could be added to that, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that the limit is one. There's nothing to prevent infinity to approach some given limit be it a year, an eon, or something we have no comprehension of.
>
>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.
It explains how you've framed the problem with suppositions about how infinity works and about what it can and cannot do. But I don't expect you to admit that. In fact, I expect you to explain again why it is your explanation MUST be right because you believe the definitions it rests on to be intuitively right, and I'm afraid I can't argue against intuition.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 