Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Both in this forum and the sub-forum there seem to be a great misconception regarding the understanding of infinity and I'd like to clear a few things out.

The infinite, like the finite is a state applicable to all types of quantification. There's nothing in-between the quantities, there's nothing near infinite and there's nothing near finite.

A set, or quantity is infinite if and only if the quantity can be described with a number. For instance the set of natural numbers are infinite due to the fact that there is no highest natural number (see picture bellow).

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2723/natural.gif

We also know that the amount of prime numbers are infinite, due to the proof bellow.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5044/prime.gif

But I digress.

Now two infinite sets are considered equal when you can construct a scheme where for all numbers in one set are correspondent in the other set.

Now, lets compare the set of natural numbers above to the set of integers.

http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/7159/int.gif

By constructing the following scheme we can see that for every natural number there's a corresponding integer.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5583/int2.gif

Or for those who prefer a table.

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/6924/int3.gif

So if you give me a integer, say the number -2010, the corresponding number would be 4021. Nonetheless for any possible integer you could provide I could provide a corresponding natural number, hence the sets are equal.

From this we learn that and infinite set does not increase in size if you multiply it or add to it.

Next we want to examine if the set of natural numbers to rational numbers.

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/3314/quo.gif

What we do is pair up the numbers in the following manner to avoid the infinities.

http://static.duartes.org/img/blogPosts/countingRationals.png

And eventually for any rational number you provide, say 1/5 I'd be able to correspond that with a natural number 14.

We've now proved that infinity to the power of a finite number is equal to itself. Keep this in mind in cosmological anime and magna debates, infinite multiverses each consisting of an infinite amount of universes doesn't mean that the infinite multiverses are greater. Since it's essentially infinity squared.

Now you can't pair up the natural numbers (or the integers, or the rational numbers) to real numbers, which is defined as follows.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/8/d/c8d3674a3e15ae16f414c30721d880f9.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/0/7/707feb3fed79232f35d26d49274e16fd.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Dedekind_cut_sqrt_2.svg

Now we can prove that the set of real numbers (which is equal to the set of complex numbers, by the same logic for why natural numbers and rational numbers are equal) can't be paired up with the set of natural numbers. Yes, we're going to prove a negative again (see prime numbers), that's what we do in mathematical analysis.

http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/6015/realt.gif

What's a bit more difficult to realize is that with this we've proven that through bijection we're able to construct greater infinities and that there are no greatest infinity.

So what's actually proven, and how may it be of use?

There's no such thing as near infinite, rendering the sentences such as "near infinite power" meaningless.
Infinite multiverses such aren't necessarily greater than one infinite universe, in fact the multiverse might be smaller still.
There's no such thing as unsurpassable characters since there's always a greater infinity.

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that most authors aren't mathematicians and it's probably more sound to take their word on it than try and prove them wrong about their own works.

He's not saying the authors are misusing it, he's saying the people here are.

Can someone summarize everything he said in those two posts in one easy to read sentence? Preemptive thankees.

First, I really appreciate this type of work. Honestly, I wish more people would try to educate themselves and try to use math to interpret reality.

This is why I like you, Astner...and this is why I defend you at times.


Originally posted by Astner
So what's actually proven, and how may it be of use?

There's no such thing as near infinite, rendering the sentences such as "near infinite power" meaningless.
Infinite multiverses such aren't necessarily greater than one infinite universe, in fact the multiverse might be smaller still.
There's no such thing as unsurpassable characters since there's always a greater infinity.

Thoughts?

1. Near infinite power could have multiple interpretations. It could mean that if the person is immortal, they could exert a certain level of energy for an eternity. But, they could not exert an infinite amount of energy for an infinitesimal instant. Does that make sense? Their energy infinitely restores itself, but it is finite in storage. Example: Kid Buu.
2. This assumes that the singular universe is infinite when it is not. The multiverse is not considered infinite, either. But, for all intents and purposes it is "near infinite" as the number would be so large that it is not really a tangible number. However, strictly and pedantically speaking, there would be a finite number of multiverses and, therefore, finite in number (lulz).
3. Incorrect. Infinity + 1 = infinity. Infinity - 1 = infinity. Also, you are applying a set of mathematical rules that cannot be logically be applied. For instance, a person may have power as follows: all of the power of the multiverse/2 + 1. Not matter what anyone does, they can never surpass that person: aka, unsurpassable. The best anyone else can do is all o the power in the multiverse/2 -1.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Near infinite power could have multiple interpretations. It could mean that if the person is immortal, they could exert a certain level of energy for an eternity. But, they could not exert an infinite amount of energy for an infinitesimal instant. Does that make sense? Their energy infinitely restores itself, but it is finite in storage. Example: Kid Buu.
It all ties into how you wish to define a character's power. If you define it as the power used over a given period of time then no, the character doesn't have infinite power. But if you define it by their source or resources, then yes the character would have infinite power.

Now the reason for why the latter option is meaningless is because that it would make characters that that have an extended lifespan more powerful than characters with a shorter lifespan. For instance, Roshi and Vegeta. Vegeta will eventually die of age, limiting his capabilities, whereas Roshi will live on until he's killed. So given enough time Roshi would've exerted more energy than Vegeta.

But it would be folly to work with that definition.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. This assumes that the singular universe is infinite when it is not. The multiverse is not considered infinite, either. But, for all intents and purposes it is "near infinite" as the number would be so large that it is not really a tangible number. However, strictly and pedantically speaking, there would be a finite number of multiverses and, therefore, finite in number (lulz).
In reality the size of the universe is decided by the density parameter, omega accordingly.

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7553/41510462.gif

According to the most recent results I've seen Omega = 1.003 +- 0.010, meaning that all three options are possible. I'm sure that there are more accurate measuring but I'm also sure that the density parameter is still undecided.

For more information, visit this site

The universe and multiverse I used for my example are for all intents infinite.

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Incorrect. Infinity + 1 = infinity. Infinity - 1 = infinity. Also, you are applying a set of mathematical rules that cannot be logically be applied.
Read the opening posts before criticizing them. The only postulate used was the axiom of choice--which sates that if you're able to pair up every element from one set with each and every element of another set then they contain a equal amount of elements. Furthermore, we've already established that infinity + 1 = infinity, in fact we've established all the equalities bellow.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3239/inty.gif

As I've pointed out and proven, we can analyze infinity with algebra. In fact that are various fields of research dedicated to this. See also. If you wish to engage in an argument, read through the proof posted and try to formulate a proper response.

Originally posted by dadudemon
For instance, a person may have power as follows: all of the power of the multiverse/2 + 1. Not matter what anyone does, they can never surpass that person: aka, unsurpassable. The best anyone else can do is all o the power in the multiverse/2 -1.
This argument makes no sense.

I think the real problem is that mathematicians misuse the term Infinity, which came from Infinitas which was closer to unboundness. So pretty much all those uses are correct and the whole proof thing was pointless.

Other than that, good work.

Originally posted by Bentley
I think the real problem is that mathematicians misuse the term Infinity, which came from Infinitas which was closer to unboundness. So pretty much all those uses are correct and the whole proof thing was pointless.
In mathematics infinity is defined as a value greater than any assignable value. Of course, just as finite values can vary in size, so can infinite values.

The reason I used the mathematical definition was because it's unambiguous unlike the philosophical definitions which are vague and vary. For instance "An infinite amount of stars lighting the night sky" is philosophically correct, but not correct mathematically.

I knew this was by you as soon as I read the title. Another long-winded pointless diatribe.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
I knew this was by you as soon as I read the title. Another long-winded pointless diatribe.
Ah, encouraging words. Could I ever expect less of you? On a more serious note, if you don't have any constructive contributions then don't post.

Originally posted by Astner
In mathematics infinity is defined as a value greater than any assignable value. Of course, just as finite values can vary in size, so can infinite values.

The reason I used the mathematical definition was because it's unambiguous unlike the philosophical definitions which are vague and vary. For instance "An infinite amount of stars lighting the night sky" is philosophically correct, but not correct mathematically.

The problem is that choosing the mathematical meaning is as wrong as picking some philosophical ambiguity, you're discussing a linguistic problems and trying to cut the linguistic part of it. You're basically making a definition that makes your argument pointless.

Originally posted by Bentley
The problem is that choosing the mathematical meaning is as wrong as picking some philosophical ambiguity, you're discussing a linguistic problems and trying to cut the linguistic part of it. You're basically making a definition that makes your argument pointless.
I disagree, the mathematical definition is, once again, unambitious and logically coherent. Whereas the philosophical is vague and confusing. As numbers are relative the philosophical definition doesn't really give any insight.

But yes, one of the main principles are that we define infinity as a value beyond assignment (i.e. the mathematical definition).

By defining infinity you're defining also the idea of it being misused -not being used as by definition-, hence the problem comes from the system as you define it, it's not inherent to the reality is meant to encompass -language-.

Originally posted by Bentley
By defining infinity you're defining also the idea of it being misused -not being used as by definition-, hence the problem comes from the system as you define it, it's not inherent to the reality is meant to encompass -language-.
Yes, terminology can be misused. But that's rarely the case. Especially when it comes to simple story telling such as anime and manga. When Vegeta threaten to destroy the planet the intent was clear.

If someone decided to derive a rigorous formula for how much energy it would take for Vegeta to destroy a planet, that calculation wouldn't be useless due to the possibility of alternate interpretations.

Originally posted by Astner
Ah, encouraging words. Could I ever expect less of you? On a more serious note, if you don't have any constructive contributions then don't post.

When someone says "near infinite" it's obvious that they just mean "a ****ing huge amount". The fact that you don't get this simple concept despite always claiming to be so smart means you're either dense or just trolling.

Originally posted by Astner
Yes, terminology can be misused. But that's rarely the case. Especially when it comes to simple story telling such as anime and manga. When Vegeta threaten to destroy the planet the intent was clear.

If someone decided to derive a rigorous formula for how much energy it would take for Vegeta to destroy a planet, that calculation wouldn't be useless due to the possibility of alternate interpretations.


But you assume there is a calculation, and thus you create the problem -of assuming there is a correct terminology for said calculation that may not have happened-.

Adjetives are qualifiers not necesarily quantifiers, in true, near infinite conveys an idea that works in a linguistic contest and hence cannot be really considered wrong.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
When someone says "near infinite" it's obvious that they just mean "a ****ing huge amount".
When someone says "near infinite" he's using paradoxical terminology, which only purpose could be to confuse. In the case you're referring to it isn't that difficult to estimate the given energy. Measured in joules; it would be to the 10 to the 32th power, or for comparison; in the same range as Roshi's Kamehameha. Both more explanatory than near-infinite.

Originally posted by Endless Mike
The fact that you don't get this simple concept despite always claiming to be so smart means you're either dense or just trolling.
Unambiguity and clarity in a analysis is what separates a good analysis from a poor analysis. Also, I'd advice you to read the thread before commenting on it.

Originally posted by Astner
It all ties into how you wish to define a character's power. If you define it as the power used over a given period of time then no, the character doesn't have infinite power. But if you define it by their source or resources, then yes the character would have infinite power.

Now the reason for why the latter option is meaningless is because that it would make characters that that have an extended lifespan more powerful than characters with a shorter lifespan. For instance, Roshi and Vegeta. Vegeta will eventually die of age, limiting his capabilities, whereas Roshi will live on until he's killed. So given enough time Roshi would've exerted more energy than Vegeta.

It works just fine when it is left ambiguous. If a character will live forever (no end) and they can exert a force for that entire time, without stopping, then it is an infinite amount of energy.

Total force in a set can be calculated as follows:

force applied per unit time * time.

if time = infinity then force equals infinity. The end.

The only rebuttal to that is "ZOMG! LIEK....HEAT DEATH!" The my reply is "see 'no end' reference."




Originally posted by Astner
In reality the size of the universe is decided by the density parameter, omega accordingly.

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7553/41510462.gif

According to the most recent results I've seen Omega = 1.003 +- 0.010, meaning that all three options are possible. I'm sure that there are more accurate measuring but I'm also sure that the density parameter is still undecided.

For more information, visit this site

The universe and multiverse I used for my example are for all intents infinite.

I subscribe to the S^3 model. It's a closed loop and finite in size. I picture the universe as being like a bubble forming in a dense fluid...but the fluid doesn't adhere to the exact set of physics that our fluids do inside the universe.

Originally posted by Astner
Read the opening posts before criticizing them. The only postulate used was the axiom of choice--which sates that if you're able to pair up every element from one set with each and every element of another set then they contain a equal amount of elements. Furthermore, we've already established that infinity + 1 = infinity, in fact we've established all the equalities bellow.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/3239/inty.gif

As I've pointed out and proven, we can analyze infinity with algebra. In fact that are various fields of research dedicated to this. See also. If you wish to engage in an argument, read through the proof posted and try to formulate a proper response.

As my post clearly indicates, I read the OP. You can use whatever definition of infinity that you'd like, I'll still with the an applicable definition.

There was a mathmetician, forget his name, said that if you had a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests in each room, what do you do when a couple arrives, looking for a room?

He said, quite simple, that you just move them into a room and no one has to leave because there is an infinite # of rooms. Odd, isn't it? But, that's how it's supposed to work. Infinity - 1 = infinity. Infinity + 1 = infinity.

Check this out:

infinity/2 = infinity.

The problem with the logic in the image you posted is as follows:

2^(Na) = Na



You can do lots of math on the set of infinity and it usually ends up being infinity, still.

Na+1 still equals Na. It is not >, it is =. Always.

This is where the "postulate" errors.

Originally posted by Astner
This argument makes no sense.

It does, especially using your definition of an infinite universe and your definition of infinity. WEEEEE!

Originally posted by dadudemon
It works just fine when it is left ambiguous. If a character will live forever (no end) and they can exert a force for that entire time, without stopping, then it is an infinite amount of energy.
Wrong. If something is left ambiguous it leaves from for subjectivity and paradoxes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Total force in a set can be calculated as follows:

force applied per unit time * time.

if time = infinity then force equals infinity. The end.

The only rebuttal to that is "ZOMG! LIEK....HEAT DEATH!" The my reply is "see 'no end' reference."
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I subscribe to the S^3 model. It's a closed loop and finite in size. I picture the universe as being like a bubble forming in a dense fluid...but the fluid doesn't adhere to the exact set of physics that our fluids do inside the universe.
You're not allowed to select a unproven model and adhere to it as fact.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There was a mathmetician, forget his name, said that if you had a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests in each room, what do you do when a couple arrives, looking for a room?
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He said, quite simple, that you just move them into a room and no one has to leave because there is an infinite # of rooms. Odd, isn't it? But, that's how it's supposed to work. Infinity - 1 = infinity. Infinity + 1 = infinity.
It corresponds with the equations above c + aleph = aleph. c can be 1 and -1.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Check this out:

infinity/2 = infinity.
Once again it's proven above in c*aleph = aleph, set c = 1/2.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The problem with the logic in the image you posted is as follows:

2^(Na) = Na



You can do lots of math on the set of infinity and it usually ends up being infinity, still.

Na+1 still equals Na. It is not >, it is =. Always.

This is where the "postulate" errors.
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.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It does, especially using your definition of an infinite universe and your definition of infinity. WEEEEE!
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.

I think there is a language without ambiguity -Lobjan- that has the issue that it cannot be fully learned.

"Near Infinite" = Very Powerful

The real question is, how far does "near infinite" get you with minimal demonstration of that power?

Originally posted by No End N Site
"Near Infinite" = Very Powerful
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.

Originally posted by No End N Site
The real question is, how far does "near infinite" get you with minimal demonstration of that power?
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.

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."
"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.

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/2558/99049670.gif

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.
No. It doesn't. From where I stand you either didn't read it or didn't understand it.

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.
facepalm

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.
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.

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.
Do you know what proof, in a mathematical sense, means? It means that it follows as a completely logical consequence. You can't be proven wrong and be right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Infinity raised to infinity is still infinity. 2 raised to infinity is still infinity.
Both are infinite but each of the bijection of two (or infinity) to infinity are a greater 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.
This is utter bullshit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Divide infinity by infinity and it's 1? Who's to say that?
No one.

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.
No, there is clearly defined which operations affect infinite cardinal sets and which operations that don't, and it's proven.

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.
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.

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.
Appeal to ridicule fallacy. Once again, if you can't read mathematical proofs look up the scientific links I've provided you with.

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.
Hopefully in a few years, you'll grow to realize your errors in this thread.

@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.

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