Originally posted by Philosophía
Oh, I agree the outliers are valid.But I'm talking about the feats themselves -- they're not of that magnitude, certainly not enough to even rank them. We can talk about 5 and 6 if you'd like [where you put no asterisk], and then move to Iron Clad.
I don't think he'll discuss it with you 🙁
Originally posted by Magnon
The comics say the book has infinite number of pages. I don't need to provide the simplest possible implementation of it nor the exact implementation from the comics (whatever that might be; as mentioned by qwerty, spatial overlap of pages is the likely scenario). It suffices for me to show that such a thing is not logically impossible. Which I have, using an explicit mathematical construction.
This is the reason we have Ockham's razor.
Originally posted by Magnon
I've already said that the infinity symbol I used in my post can be taken to be just a label for an element in a set. The domain and codomain of a function g:A-->B only need to be sets, without any additional mathematical structure. The union {1,2,3,....} ∪ {0 , ∞ } is a valid domain for my function whether or not one assigns any additional meaning to the infinity symbol. The cardinality of this domain is infinite, aleph-zero to be precise, thus the book has countably infinite number of pages.My map g is not a composition map but a function-theoretical extension of the map f. Its linearity is irrelevant; I can very well define the final page of the book to be the page with the largest x-value, in this case x=1. Just watch me:
[B]Definition (final page):
The final page (of Magnon's book construction) is the page with the largest x-value. [/B]
You're taking page 1 and page 2 and saying "these are pages 0 and ∞ now," and then you renumber the remaining pages 1, 2, 3, .... This you're not allowed to do.
The pages have to be arranged in the order they were written. You don't get to choose which page is the final page, the final page is going to be the final page the monkey wrote: and if there were infinite pages it's not going to exist.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Let's discuss number 5 and 6 on your list. We've had nearly 8 pages focussing on one feat so far.
Well, like pretty much all of these feats, the physics of those don't make much sense. They're also outliers by any reasonable definition. Quantifying them in terms of joules would also be pretty difficult, if not impossible. But I don't see any way to object to the fact that they happened. It has been a very long time since I read that comic, though. I might have to reread it.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Let's discuss number 5 and 6 on your list. We've had nearly 8 pages focussing on one feat so far.
There isn't any active Thor or surfer fan on this forum anymore.
Carver and JBL hardly could be said as comic books fans. Astner doesn't even like comics.
Though even back when the first years I joined the forum, There are someone like Alberto/Bazi, hulkster butthurt every feat that performed by Superman.
Superman is the only constant on KMC same as Superman is the only constant in DCU 😛
Originally posted by Astner
You're treading the same territory as Darksaint here. To recap, he came up with the "there had to be two monkeys" explanation just to avoid having to accept that the expression was figurative.This is the reason we have Ockham's razor.
You're ignoring the nature of the problem. We're not talking about any set, we're talking about an ordered set.
You're taking page 1 and page 2 and saying "these are pages 0 and ∞ now," and then you renumber the remaining pages 1, 2, 3, .... This you're not allowed to do.
The pages have to be arranged in the order they were written. You don't get to choose which page is the final page, the final page is going to be the final page the monkey wrote: and if there were infinite pages it's not going to exist.
Mentioning Occam's razor, lol.
It's simple. The comic said it was infinite. So Occam's razor means....we take it as infinite. You're the one reaching across decades to old Animal Man comics, talking about it being hyperbole etc, when the simplest explanation is....
It was infinite, and Ultraman was wrong.
You want to say it's the same monkey, then prove it. Your assertion, you prove. That's how debates work.
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Mentioning Occam's razor, lol.It's simple. The comic said it was infinite. So Occam's razor means....we take it as infinite. You're the one reaching across decades to old Animal Man comics, talking about it being hyperbole etc, when the simplest explanation is....
It was infinite, and Ultraman was wrong.
The simplest explanation is it was (figuratively) infinite and no one was wrong. With this explanation we don't have to reject anything...other than baseless interpretations.
Originally posted by Astner
Morrison referenced this story in Final Crisis: Superman Beyond, so why should be ignore it?The simplest explanation is it was (figuratively) infinite and no one was wrong. With this explanation we don't have to reject anything...other than baseless interpretations.
He had a callback to it. An Easter egg. Doesn't mean it's the same one, any more than having Easter eggs of Marvel characters means it's actually the Marvel character.
I think you just misread the comic, and don't want to admit your mistake. You have realised you have zero proof that they're the same, and you're just trying to cover yourself.
Originally posted by qwertyuiop1998
Yeah, Seriously, Superman is basically what keeps KMC alive at this point.There isn't any active Thor or surfer fan on this forum anymore.
Carver and JBL hardly could be said as comic books fans. Astner doesn't even like comics.
Though even back when the first years I joined the forum, There are someone like Alberto/Bazi, hulkster butthurt every feat that performed by Superman.
Superman is the only constant on KMC same as Superman is the only constant in DCU 😛
Is it really so weird to be a fan of both Marvel and DC characters like I am?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
He had a callback to it. An Easter egg. Doesn't mean it's the same one, any more than having Easter eggs of Marvel characters means it's actually the Marvel character.I think you just misread the comic, and don't want to admit your mistake. You have realised you have zero proof that they're the same, and you're just trying to cover yourself.
Originally posted by Astner
Again, I don't really have time to respond to the replies directed at me, and I realized yesterday that there's no point in debating if I can't look up the scenes.But I did check out the scene in Superman: Up In the Sky, and it's not a dream sequence.
The story ends at the penultimate page of #5, and the last page features a new story where Superman is in chains that continues in #6.
- Superman: Up In the Sky #5
I'm more interested in being correct than winning debates.
The reason I'm not conceeding here is because I've been given no good reason to conceede.
Originally posted by Endless MikeThe discussion I want to have in regards to the feat is the scale of it, and what we can discern it to be. If you want, I can PM you the comic to refresh your memory. We should put feats on the list that are actual feats [outliers as they are], not non-worthy feats.
Well, like pretty much all of these feats, the physics of those don't make much sense. They're also outliers by any reasonable definition. Quantifying them in terms of joules would also be pretty difficult, if not impossible. But I don't see any way to object to the fact that they happened. It has been a very long time since I read that comic, though. I might have to reread it.
Originally posted by Astner
I have no problems conceeding arguments, just this week I recall conceeding that the star-hauling feat wasn't a dream feat.I'm more interested in being correct than winning debates.
The reason I'm not conceeding here is because I'm correct.
Then it should be simple to prove you're correct. Easter eggs and callbacks are what you're hinging your argument on, but at the moment it's little more than faith and belief, with zero proof.
But if that's how you want to leave it, sure.
