Victory-Class Star Destroyer vs. Modern Day Earth

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Time is weird. *washes hands of reliance on tangibility of abstract concepts*

Are you aware (and am I right?) that asymptotes are mathematical concepts? They describe things but are not things themselves. They don't exist; They are useful.

Yeah they're mathematical concepts but as graphical representations specifically, they exist in tangible terms as images and as such rather than being governed by the continuous, infinite nature of the number line, are governed by the discrete, finite nature of space. As such it doesn't make actual sense that a curve could become closer and closer to a line but never actually cross it once accepting the existence of an indivisible unit of space.

But that just means that the image is imperfect. Are you going to discard the definition of a point (a location without volume/area) out of hand because we can't see it on a physical graph?

The right answer here is 'no, I am not going to use imperfect representations of abstract concepts to try to discredit other abstract concepts.'

You're also dealing with Zeno's Paradox, which is always fun.

Given that the image in question isn't simply being used as a means of representation but also as a means to observe the relationships between different algebraic functions based on their proximity and where they meet, the manner in which the finite nature of an image can't adequately support the infinite nature of the number line has everything to do with discrediting certain graphical concepts and their uses.

I also read up a tiny bit on this Zemo and what does his theories have to do with what I was saying? I admittedly did skim through it.

No. Not even a little. We don't call .9999999999999 = .9999999999998 simply because on a graph they would be close enough to touch. It doesn't work that way.

(Of course, I might be missing the point, but it seems like your argument falls apart when we look at differently scaled graphs- that .ooooooooooooooooooooooo1 difference might be less than the size of an atom away in one representation but a page away in another one. So your objection is moot.)

Originally posted by SAENBR
I also read up a tiny bit on this Zemo and what does his theories have to do with what I was saying? I admittedly did skim through it.

Going half a distance over and over again would bring the distance to an infinitely small quantity. Same principle.

Distance: 100 m.
Speed: .5 remaining distance

(Meters remaining)
100
50
25
12.5
6.25
3.125
1.5625
0.78125
...
0.000000186264514923095703125
...
0.0000000014551915228366851806640625

(Then it goes into scientific notation)

So the distance becomes smaller and smaller, with no conceivable end. (Infinity sux)

An asymptote is an abstract thing. RN is right, you can't use sth abstract to prove sth real.

How do you create that graph. By an infinite number of points that share the same property right(the coordinates of the points result from a function) ? But those points are again abstract objects. The graph is an abstract object.

We use a real way to describe abstract objects. We use a drawing to describe a graph, but the graph and the drawing aren't the same because they don't have the same space properties. The drawing represents a graph , and our brains turn the drawing into the abstract object called graph.

We use emoticons to drascribe fury ( 😠 ), but fury itself isn't a red colored circle with some black lines, our brain asociates the real object to the abstract one. You can't apply the properties of an abstract object to real ones.

Originally posted by radu1234
We use emoticons to drascribe fury ( 😠 ), but fury itself isn't a red colored circle with some black lines, our brain asociates the real object to the abstract one.

I'll thank you not to patronise me.

Spoiler:
😠

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Going half a distance over and over again would bring the distance to an infinitely small quantity. Same principle.

Distance: 100 m.
Speed: .5 remaining distance

(Meters remaining)
100
50
25
12.5
6.25
3.125
1.5625
0.78125
...
0.000000186264514923095703125
...
0.0000000014551915228366851806640625

(Then it goes into scientific notation)

So the distance becomes smaller and smaller, with no conceivable end. (Infinity sux)

Funnily enough that was what I was referencing when I was saying that the existence of indivisible units of matter/space could be proven, I just wasn't aware I had actually mentioned it. That being said however, why is it named as a paradox? The model in itself would conclusively prove that there is such a thing as an indivisible unit of matter/space, given that if there wasn't, and you divided the distance into two equal parts and then the same with the remainder an indefinite number of times, the distance between the two points would consist of an infinite number of a constantly decreasing but always positive value, and as such would be impossible to cross. As we know in practise that person A can walk from point B to point C, clearly there is an indivisible unit of matter/space.

I'm in a hurry so here's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/4_%2B_1/16_%2B_1/64_%2B_1/256_%2B_%C2%B7_%C2%B7_%C2%B7

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999_%3D_1

(also: the infinitely small... that you described is Calculus. Newton didn't like to waste his time.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
No. Not even a little. We don't call .9999999999999 = .9999999999998 simply because on a graph they would be close enough to touch. It doesn't work that way.

(Of course, I might be missing the point, but it seems like your argument falls apart when we look at differently scaled graphs- that .ooooooooooooooooooooooo1 difference might be less than the size of an atom away in one representation but a page away in another one. So your objection is moot.)

There appears to be some kind of communication. I can't say for sure but I think what you thought my argument was stating was that graphs cannot adequately represent the infinite, continuous nature of the number line because of the fallibilities of humans as far as precision goes (I'm assuming that's what you were thinking when you mentioned scale). Which isn't what I was saying. Take Darth Bane for instance, who can see the world around him on a subatomic scale. In fact, take someone even better (perhaps DoE Bane?) who can see things and operate on an indivisible unitary scale (that's officially my term). He could draw up a graph that does operate on such a level, but it still wouldn't be able to adequately represent the infinite, continuous number line. Regardless of the comprehension of the drawer, graphs aren't capable simply because as an image governed by the rules and limitations of space, it is entirely finite and discrete. As such, linear asymptotes, graphical concepts, makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm in a hurry so here's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/4_%2B_1/16_%2B_1/64_%2B_1/256_%2B_%C2%B7_%C2%B7_%C2%B7

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999_%3D_1

Sure, numbers (again, I skimmed through them but I'm pretty srue I know what the articles are about) are truly continuous and infinite, I wasn't denying that, and I definitely wouldn't suggest that there's such a thing as an indivisible unitary number.

(also: the infinitely small... that you described is Calculus. Newton didn't like to waste his time.)

wat?

edit - Now to Radu!

For some odd reason I'm feeling kinda Darth Sexyish. Maybe it's the mad, somewhat radical and random beliefs.

Originally posted by radu1234
An asymptote is an abstract thing. RN is right, you can't use sth abstract to prove sth real.

How do you create that graph. By an infinite number of points that share the same property right(the coordinates of the points result from a function) ? But those points are again abstract objects. The graph is an abstract object.

We use a real way to describe abstract objects. We use a drawing to describe a graph, but the graph and the drawing aren't the same because they don't have the same space properties. The drawing represents a graph , and our brains turn the drawing into the abstract object called graph.

We use emoticons to drascribe fury ( 😠 ), but fury itself isn't a red colored circle with some black lines, our brain asociates the real object to the abstract one. You can't apply the properties of an abstract object to real ones.

Maybe I'm not completely informed on the matter but I thought the image was the graph. Regardless, the image, whatever you want to call it, is still used to solve mathematical problems; regardless of whether it's a representation of something else, the image is what mathematicians directly observe and use to solve things that cannot be done or as easily be done using strict mathematical format. So the point that the image is of a completely discrete and finite nature is still a perfectly valid one given the fundamentally different nature of the number line (btw is that the technical/best term to use? Curious because I've been using it a lot).

Quadrapost. I call that "MegaPost."

That was a little extreme but in all seriousness how ridiculous would this have looked:

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
No. Not even a little. We don't call .9999999999999 = .9999999999998 simply because on a graph they would be close enough to touch. It doesn't work that way.

(Of course, I might be missing the point, but it seems like your argument falls apart when we look at differently scaled graphs- that .ooooooooooooooooooooooo1 difference might be less than the size of an atom away in one representation but a page away in another one. So your objection is moot.)

There appears to be some kind of communication. I can't say for sure but I think what you thought my argument was stating was that graphs cannot adequately represent the infinite, continuous nature of the number line because of the fallibilities of humans as far as precision goes (I'm assuming that's what you were thinking when you mentioned scale). Which isn't what I was saying. Take Darth Bane for instance, who can see the world around him on a subatomic scale. In fact, take someone even better (perhaps DoE Bane?) who can see things and operate on an indivisible unitary scale (that's officially my term). He could draw up a graph that does operate on such a level, but it still wouldn't be able to adequately represent the infinite, continuous number line. Regardless of the comprehension of the drawer, graphs aren't capable simply because as an image governed by the rules and limitations of space, it is entirely finite and discrete. As such, linear asymptotes, graphical concepts, makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm in a hurry so here's this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/4_%2B_1/16_%2B_1/64_%2B_1/256_%2B_%C2%B7_%C2%B7_%C2%B7

and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999_%3D_1

Sure, numbers (again, I skimmed through them but I'm pretty srue I know what the articles are about) are truly continuous and infinite, I wasn't denying that, and I definitely wouldn't suggest that there's such a thing as an indivisible unitary number.

(also: the infinitely small... that you described is Calculus. Newton didn't like to waste his time.)

wat?

edit - Now to Radu!

For some odd reason I'm feeling kinda Darth Sexyish. Maybe it's the mad, somewhat radical and random beliefs.

Originally posted by radu1234
An asymptote is an abstract thing. RN is right, you can't use sth abstract to prove sth real.

How do you create that graph. By an infinite number of points that share the same property right(the coordinates of the points result from a function) ? But those points are again abstract objects. The graph is an abstract object.

We use a real way to describe abstract objects. We use a drawing to describe a graph, but the graph and the drawing aren't the same because they don't have the same space properties. The drawing represents a graph , and our brains turn the drawing into the abstract object called graph.

We use emoticons to drascribe fury ( 😠 ), but fury itself isn't a red colored circle with some black lines, our brain asociates the real object to the abstract one. You can't apply the properties of an abstract object to real ones.

Maybe I'm not completely informed on the matter but I thought the image was the graph. Regardless, the image, whatever you want to call it, is still used to solve mathematical problems; regardless of whether it's a representation of something else, the image is what mathematicians directly observe and use to solve things that cannot be done or as easily be done using strict mathematical format. So the point that the image is of a completely discrete and finite nature is still a perfectly valid one given the fundamentally different nature of the number line (btw is that the technical/best term to use? Curious because I've been using it a lot).

Very unstructured.

Originally posted by SAENBR
There appears to be some kind of communication. I can't say for sure but I think what you thought my argument was stating was that graphs cannot adequately represent the infinite, continuous nature of the number line because of the fallibilities of humans as far as precision goes (I'm assuming that's what you were thinking when you mentioned scale). Which isn't what I was saying. Take Darth Bane for instance, who can see the world around him on a subatomic scale. In fact, take someone even better (perhaps DoE Bane?) who can see things and operate on an indivisible unitary scale (that's officially my term). He could draw up a graph that does operate on such a level, but it still wouldn't be able to adequately represent the infinite, continuous number line. Regardless of the comprehension of the drawer, graphs aren't capable simply because as an image governed by the rules and limitations of space, it is entirely finite and discrete. As such, linear asymptotes, graphical concepts, makes absolutely no sense.

There appears to be some kind of miscommunication.

Regardless, the image, whatever you want to call it, is still used to solve mathematical problems; regardless of whether it's a representation of something else, the image is what mathematicians directly observe and use to solve things that cannot be done or as easily be done using strict mathematical format.

This is not entirely true. I don't know how much math you've had (more than likely more than me) but in our class graphing is always the least accurate and least used method; it is the first one presented and then the first one tossed out. There are always better ways algebraic ways to find things shown on graphs. Every procedure we've done on graph paper has been easier and/or quicker using straight math.

And the image is a crude representation- points are visible and measurable, and imperfections make it impossible sometimes to determine where things intersect ('n' such).

(...)

Your Bane example is a poor one Neb, for several two reasons.

The first is that the 'Sub-Atomic Alterations' the book talks about are utterly meaningless in real-world physics. Electrons don't exist locally, that is, they are not particles. They are probabilities. So Bane can't have been moving them. The manipulation of 'sub-atomic particles' is either lies (in the case of moving something that cannot be found) or irrelevant (proton placement is a silly thing to worry about).

The second is that the number line is not a physical construct. Infinity is difficult to fathom, large or small, and the problem you're raising (the impossibility of drawing a graph) is a non-issue because graphs are only representations. They are not assumed perfect (because that isn't possible, what with zero-volume points) but are assumed useful.

*I hope that made sense. Radu, fix what mistakes I made. plz. thnx.

Originally posted by SAENBR
That was a little extreme but in all seriousness how ridiculous would this have looked:

*Insert nice structured text*

Very unstructured.

Nope. Much better.

Originally posted by SAENBR
I'll thank you not to patronise me. [SPOILER - highlight to read]: mad

I assure you, that was totally not in my intentions. Sry if it seemed so.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Quadrapost. I call that "MegaPost."

Are you familiar with the Unreal Tournament announcements ? Because there, if you kill 4 ppl in a row you get a MegaKill.
(MeeeegaKiiiiiill 😄 ).

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
This is not entirely true. I don't know how much math you've had (more than likely more than me) but in our class graphing is always the least accurate and least used method; it is the first one presented and then the first one tossed out. There are always better ways algebraic ways to find things shown on graphs. Every procedure we've done on graph paper has been easier and/or quicker using straight math.

And the image is a crude representation- points are visible and measurable, and imperfections make it impossible sometimes to determine where things intersect ('n' such).

Exactly what i wanted to respond.
Drawings are the least accurate resolves because they are real, not abstract. You can solve a geometry problem without a drawing (i always do that because i hate to waste time on useless images) if you can imagine what you were supposed to draw and use ur head as a paper so you can see the angles and lines and so, but you can't solve the problem nearly accurate(or at all) if you only use the image and no actual maths. Everywhere in maths, drawings are just ways to help us better visualize what we want to solve, it's just a helper.

Maybe I'm not completely informed on the matter but I thought the image was the graph.

Hmm, you know, i actually thought that the graph might be the image, but i didn't know for sure either so i was hoping someone would correct me ... but if i think about it, the graph is more likely to be the image so, wherever i mention graph, think about the abstract representation of the asymptote and wherever i said image think abou the graph... it's a trivial matter, you still understood what i was saying.

directly observe and use to solve things that cannot be done or as easily be done using strict mathematical format.

In fact it's "as easly be done" , only. Drawings are just helpers, you can pass through math perfectly without any drawings.

fallibilities of humans as far as precision goes

We aren't talking about faillibilities of humans, but about faillibilities of reality. Reality is nowhere near as precise as abstractism because it lacks infinitism. Hope i made sense. Thats why we can't compare the two.

So the graps cannot adequately represent the infinite, continious nature of numbers because it's a real notion that doesn't have the same precision as abstract ones.

Again, the graphs are just real ways to represent how the asymptote looks . It's not accurate and doesn't share the infinite nature, which is an abstract only characteristic.

The Darth Bane example isn't actually half bad.In actual reality, yeah, it's not good. But we consider theoretically that the drawing is made at an exact moment in time, and such the electrons wouldn't move and he could write on them as well. But we are talking about realities failibilities, not human ones. So it's irelevant because Darth Bane operates on a real scale(even if substomic) that is finite, not on an abstract one that is infinite.

The best way to solve this problem is going backwards. If matter could actually be splitted an infinite number of times, and it started from the smallest particle, then it means matter started to compose from infinite. Since infinite cannot be reached, it means we would have never appeared (we can't consider ouselves somewhere at infinite-1 because matter prior to the big bang was at big as it could get,that was proof 1, proof 2 is that we have a size today, while something infinetly small cannot have a size and such, sth twice bigger again doesn't have size and so on). So matter had to start composing from an indivisible particle of a certain size, unlike an infinetly small particle that has no size. But how did that particle appear? The only theory, so far, that can explain this is the existence of God theory, even if unscientific.

Um...guys, can we get banned for going like waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa(a*10^30)yyyyyy( i quoted Eminence here 😛 ) offtopic?