Originally posted by No End N Site
"Near Infinite" = Very Powerful
The problem with this is that there's no such thing as near infinite from a logical standpoint since it's constructed of a prefix contradictory to it's suffix. The application would only serve to confuse individuals who aren't familiar with the consensual terminology.
Originally posted by No End N Site
The real question is, how far does "near infinite" get you with minimal demonstration of that power?
Originally posted by Astner
Wrong. If something is left ambiguous it leaves from for subjectivity and paradoxes.
Wrong, and I explained why, already. You just missed the point, again. You did not understand the use of "ambiguous."
Originally posted by Astner
I just don't see the benefit in applying a methodology suggesting that Roshi would have infinite energy and that Vegeta has finite energy, based of their lifespans. Or more specificity it would say nothing of the characters.
You can interpret it however you'd like. Fact remains, what I said is correct and it counters your point in the OP.
Originally posted by Astner
You're not allowed to select a unproven model and adhere to it as fact.
I can and I will especially in the context of fiction because the universes in fiction are almost always the S3 model.
You can't select an unproven model and adhere to it as superior to another unproven model that is less likely to show up in the fictional universes that we are discussing. That's just assinine. 😬
Originally posted by Astner
That's Hilbert's hotel and there are three variants of it. The first where there's one guest checking in, the second where there's an infinite amount of guests checking in and the final where there's an infinite amount of buses each with a infinite amount of guests checking in.The two latter are proven above in greater detail and the first one is rather basic as the assignment would be n to n + 1.
It corresponds with the equations above c + aleph = aleph. c can be 1 and -1.
Once again it's proven above in c*aleph = aleph, set c = 1/2.
You're wrong. Follow my proof, and look up these links for reference: Cardinality - Wikipedia - Cardinality of the continuum and Aleph-1 - Wolfram.
I'm not going to debate someone who can't read basic mathematical proofs. If you could read and counter it you'd point out a contradiction in the proof demonstrated above.
Yes, that's it...but I'll never remember his name.
Based on one proof, I could be wrong, but based on what I said, I'm right.
Infinity raised to infinity is still infinity. 2 raised to infinity is still infinity. The concept of infinity escapes lots of mathmeticians and they end up make incorrect assumptions using algebra. There's no much you can do to infinity to make it not infinity, doing math.
Divide infinity by infinity and it's 1? Who's to say that? Isn't that making up rules to a problem that literally cannot be solved? You can pretend that algebra applies to it, but it really doesn't.
This is off subject, but, "your" proof fails when it tries to make infinity something other than infinity when raising any real number to the infinity power. It's still infinity. NOT some other set of numbers greater than infinity.
And, yes, I did prove it to be wrong. It's still infinity, you just missed it. You can't think outside of someone else's writing. It's so very basic on why it is wrong.
Originally posted by Astner
No, not as it was formulated. I'm not going to waste my time deciphering your poorly structured sentences in hopes of understanding what it is you want to know. If you have a question or suggestion phrase it properly.
You've already wasted lots of time. And, it's not poorly worded at all. I've argued with you long enough to realize that you have very basic comprehension problems, at times. You're smart, for sure...but some things don't click with you.
So where are we? Oh, that's right, we are almost talking about entirely different things than my original points, as always. facepalm
Originally posted by Astner
I assume that you mean that near infinite is equivalent with great, since neither the term "near" or "infinite" doesn't have to typify power.The problem with this is that there's no such thing as near infinite from a logical standpoint since it's constructed of a prefix contradictory to it's suffix. The application would only serve to confuse individuals who aren't familiar with the consensual terminology.
I agree, except in the example of my first contradiction to your OP.
Depends on how you want to define it. Ambiguity, dear Watson.
Originally posted by Astner
See, "near" indicates comparability. Since you can't compare finite values to infinite values rendering the term meaningless. Of course you could always define it, but the term itself is poorly thought out, as it doesn't really say anything about the value.
But then there's the problem of ambiguity. What if their power was infinite inside of one universe but their powers cannot and will not extend to another universe and the "observers" measure of "infinite" would mean that their powers are infinite in both universes? Then they would have to say "partially infinite" "almost infinite", "pratically infinite" etc. This is highly possible as another universe could have a comletely different set of physics.
Originally posted by Astner
I assume that you mean that near infinite is equivalent with great, since neither the term "near" or "infinite" doesn't have to typify power.
Yes, I was lookin' at things from an anime/manga prespective. I simply assume that when a character is stated to be "near infinite" in power, that just means very powerful.
Originally posted by Astner
The problem with this is that there's no such thing as near infinite from a logical standpoint since it's constructed of a prefix contradictory to it's suffix. The application would only serve to confuse individuals who aren't familiar with the consensual terminology.
I know that "near infinite" is a nonsense phrase but I just view it as an oxymoron, meaning; very great, very much or A LOT. It's all just a figure of speech to me.
So far you've ignored mathematical proofs as well as scientific articles. Furthermore you generally argue using logical fallacies. I'm not taking this debate further, I'm putting you on my ignore list.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong, and I explained why, already. You just missed the point, again. You did not understand the use of "ambiguous."
By definition the square root of a negative number doesn't exist, and it's role will become evident in complex analysis.
Point it, unless we have strict definitions we allow logical errors.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You can interpret it however you'd like. Fact remains, what I said is correct and it counters your point in the OP.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I can and I will especially in the context of fiction because the universes in fiction are almost always the S3 model.You can't select an unproven model and adhere to it as superior to another unproven model that is less likely to show up in the fictional universes that we are discussing. That's just assinine. 😬
A quick recap of what just happen.
I confirm that I employ a infinite universe for a though experiment.
You say it's impossible because the universe is finite.
I prove to you that the front line of scientific research haven't established whether or not the universe is finite or infinite.
You decide to ignore the fact and accept the model that would fit your argument.
I point out that it's wrong.
And now you're telling me that most fictional settings apply the use of a finite universe (without evidence of such).
Not only is this a complete straw man argument, since it has nothing to do with what I'm allowed to apply. But it's also a testament to that you're too close minded to accept that you can be wrong.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, that's it...but I'll never remember his name.
But to people like yourself I can see why the most recent winner of Idol would be more influencing.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Based on one proof, I could be wrong, but based on what I said, I'm right.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Infinity raised to infinity is still infinity. 2 raised to infinity is still infinity.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The concept of infinity escapes lots of mathmeticians and they end up make incorrect assumptions using algebra. There's no much you can do to infinity to make it not infinity, doing math.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Divide infinity by infinity and it's 1? Who's to say that?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Isn't that making up rules to a problem that literally cannot be solved? You can pretend that algebra applies to it, but it really doesn't.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This is off subject, but, "your" proof fails when it tries to make infinity something other than infinity when raising any real number to the infinity power. It's still infinity. NOT some other set of numbers greater than infinity.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yes, I did prove it to be wrong. It's still infinity, you just missed it. You can't think outside of someone else's writing. It's so very basic on why it is wrong.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You've already wasted lots of time. And, it's not poorly worded at all. I've argued with you long enough to realize that you have very basic comprehension problems, at times. You're smart, for sure...but some things don't click with you.
Originally posted by Astner
So far you've ignored mathematical proofs as well as scientific articles. Furthermore you generally argue using logical fallacies. I'm not taking this debate further, I'm putting you on my ignore list.
ooookay?
You're the one that ignored my points, made strawman counterpoints, and missed a few others, but you are putting me on ignore when I was the one getting frustrated with your arrogance? You are an odd one.
Originally posted by Astner
"Ambiguous" by definition means open to more than one interpretation. Let me provide you with a another mathematical example to prove what ambiguity could result it.By definition the square root of a negative number doesn't exist, and it's role will become evident in complex analysis.
Point it, unless we have strict definitions we allow logical errors.
Good job on defining ambiguous. Now all you have to do is understand conversational context to understand in which context ambiguous was used. 😬
And, nice strawman, there.
Originally posted by Astner
No. It doesn't. From where I stand you either didn't read it or didn't understand it.
Actually, it's quite obvious that you don't understand why what I said is correct and counters your original point. This is a continuing thing with you, Astner: you just don't have very good conversation skills and it's like talking to a brick wall with you, sometimes, man.
Originally posted by Astner
facepalmA quick recap of what just happen.
I confirm that I employ a infinite universe for a though experiment.
You say it's impossible because the universe is finite.
I prove to you that the front line of scientific research haven't established whether or not the universe is finite or infinite.
You decide to ignore the fact and accept the model that would fit your argument.
I point out that it's wrong.
And now you're telling me that most fictional settings apply the use of a finite universe (without evidence of such).
Not only is this a complete straw man argument, since it has nothing to do with what I'm allowed to apply. But it's also a testament to that you're too close minded to accept that you can be wrong.
Yeah, that's pretty close to it.
In context, you're arguing against a fictional universe or multiverse in which most result in finite sizes universes and you're taking the illogical standpoint that they are infinite in size and pretending that the infinite is more correct than the finite.
That's a very basic concept. Not only did I tell you that I subscribed to the S3 model, you're also very much aware of fiction having an overwhelming majority lean towards the S3 model, even if the writers aren't aware of 3 major models.
And now you're pretending if my point was ever a strawman to begin with.
The ONLY problem is your inability to understand simple conversation context. That's it. When you understand that your premise had a false element, then you'll understand why your conclusion is wrong. Until then, you'll continue to be arrogant, pretend that you're a victim, and blame your problems on me not understanding something.
Originally posted by Astner
Of course, I can't imagine that you've ever heard it outside your living room watching a documentary on Discovery channel. Hilbert singlehandedly developed the mathematical foundation behind Einstein's theory of relativity, on Einstein's request.
Switched from an astrophysics program to a cyber security program. But, hey, you can pretend that I'm as ignorant as you are, if that makes you feel better. 😬
Originally posted by Astner
But to people like yourself I can see why the most recent winner of Idol would be more influencing.
I don't watch TV ESPECIALLY crap like that. 😐
Originally posted by Astner
Both are infinite but each of the bijection of two (or infinity) to infinity are a greater infinity.
This is utter bullsh*t.
Do you see what my point is, now? A 'greater' infinity, eh? You know how retarded that is?
Originally posted by Astner
This is utter bullshit.
Again, the point escapes you.
You probably will never understand this as you cannot think outside of other's work.
Originally posted by Astner
No one.
You actually completely missed the point. 😬
It's undefined. UNDEFINED. An impossible number to calculate.
Originally posted by Astner
No, there is clearly defined which operations affect infinite cardinal sets and which operations that don't, and it's proven.
Riiiight, or we could go with 'undefined' which is correct.
Here's some simple algebra that you seem to have forgotten about:
‡ - ‡ = 0
Then:
‡ - ‡ + 1 = 0 + 1
Using simple algebra, then:
‡ - ‡ = 1
ZOMG! NO WAI! Didn't I just say something about that? Oh yeah, I did:
"The concept of infinity escapes lots of mathmeticians and they end up make incorrect assumptions using algebra. There's no much you can do to infinity to make it not infinity, doing math."
Wait, let me try it on something else.
‡/‡ = 1
Then:
(‡ + ‡)/‡ = 1
So then:
(‡/‡) + (‡/‡) = 1
Wait? Then that means:
1+1=1
That means 2=1. Wrong.
Originally posted by Astner
There are different values of finite values, correct? For instance 1 > 0, right? Both are finite, neither is "greater than finite". The same concept applies to infinite sets.
Logical fallacy. You are using real numbers to logically describe a philosphical concept.
And, yes, for some math philosphy, magnitiudes of infinity are applied. This is where I'm saying that THAT is illogical because the "funsies" is undefined or impossible to define in the ways that they are. Are you not aware of this debate? It's hardly original to mine and your conversation.
Originally posted by Astner
Appeal to ridicule fallacy. Once again, if you can't read mathematical proofs look up the scientific links I've provided you with.
You can eliminate the last statement to remove your claim of fallacy. It doesn't the point conveyed, however, with or without my comment about your comprehension.
Originally posted by Astner
Hopefully in a few years, you'll grow to realize your errors in this thread.
Hardly, I'd have to digress as what I'm stating seems to be beyond your ability to understand.
Originally posted by Bentley
@Dadudemon: Personally I don't condone using someone's faulty logic to prove them wrong in a debate, but that doesn't make you any more wrong, it doesn't make me any more right and it certainly makes Astner a little bit more wrong in a certain level.
Well, I wasn't trying to be snarky, of course...but Astner has this way of throwing hissy fits if anyone disagrees with him and it's a tad frustrating.
Also, in a debate, it's not a bad thing to use someone else's faulty logic to show how it can be falsely applied.
Edit - Just re-read my original counter (the argument you were referring to.) That was quit clever of me. 😆 I told him why it can't work and then I thought of a way in which his own set of faulty rules would still contain holes. lol