Actual Infinity in Reality?

[RoadRunner79]

Would this be an appropriate time to bring up limit theory?

This sounds very close to what a discrete view of the world would say.       It also seems to help bridge the very small gap between 0.99999..... and 1.

[polymath257]

Would this be an appropriate time to bring up limit theory?

This sounds very close to what a discrete view of the world would say.       It also seems to help bridge the very small  gap between 0.99999..... and 1.

For every e>0, there is an N such that for every n>=N, |a_n -L|<e?

Of course, we then need to quantify over the infinite collection of n>=N.

[SteveII]

Nope. The fact that we assign 1 to 0.99999... is a convenience in mathematics. 

What you are really saying is 1 = 1 - 1/infinity. 

Since 1/infinity does not equal zero, then 1 does not equal 0.99999...

Nope that is NOT what the symbolism means. It is not just a convenience. Those are actual, exact, equalities.

I assure you, you don't want the technical definition. You wouldn't be able to handle the logic of the definition.

What you have then is a limit of mathematics to account for the difference. It would mean the two are mathematically equivalent. This does not mean that the two are logically equivalent. 

When we are talking about spanning infinite series of things (as in Zeno's paradoxes) we are decidedly NOT talking about mathematics. 

And don't tell me next that mathematics and logic are the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types

[polymath257]

Nope that is NOT what the symbolism means. It is not just a convenience. Those are actual, exact, equalities.

I assure you, you don't want the technical definition. You wouldn't be able to handle the logic of the definition.

What you have then is a limit of mathematics to account for the difference. It would mean the two are mathematically equivalent. This does not mean that the two are logically equivalent. 

When we are talking about spanning infinite series of things (as in Zeno's paradoxes) we are decidedly NOT talking about mathematics. 

And don't tell me next that mathematics and logic are the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types

Do you see mathematical logic listed there by any chance? In fact, Aristotelian logic (syllogistic logic) is clearly described as having little more than historic value and being obsolete.

Logic is a subset of mathematics. You see, mathematics is the study of formal systems and logic consists of a few such systems. Propositional logic, predicate logic, even modal logic are *formal* systems and so are a part of math.

The two expressions have no meaning outside of mathematics. So the mathematical equivalence is all there is. The issue doens't even arise in propositional logic since propositional logic isn't strong enough to even talk about whole numbers, let along real numbers.

And, yes, if we are talking about an infinite series of things, we are most certainly talking about mathematics.

[The Grand Nudger]

This whole thing is still pointless.  Noboyt gives a fuck about "limits of math"...they're just pissy that he argument they purportedly hinge their "rational" faith on is fundamentally flawed.

In truth, none of them hinge their faith on that shit in the first place. The rational decision, is to concede unimportant ground to begin with, but their faith isn't rational, so?

[SteveII]

What you have then is a limit of mathematics to account for the difference. It would mean the two are mathematically equivalent. This does not mean that the two are logically equivalent. 

When we are talking about spanning infinite series of things (as in Zeno's paradoxes) we are decidedly NOT talking about mathematics. 

And don't tell me next that mathematics and logic are the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Types

Do you see mathematical logic listed there by any chance? In fact, Aristotelian logic (syllogistic logic) is clearly described as having little more than historic value and being obsolete.

Logic is a subset of mathematics. You see, mathematics is the study of formal systems and logic consists of a few such systems. Propositional logic, predicate logic, even modal logic are *formal* systems and so are a part of math.

This is probably where you should have taken the intro to philosophy class before all your math classes. It skews reality for students to think they are the center of the world.

Mathematics is its own discipline. Math employs a type of logic: mathematical logic. There is a whole host of things that have to do with philosophy and logic that have nothing to do with math. (see the link I posted that discusses 9 different types of logic --a BRANCH of philospohy)

The two expressions have no meaning outside of mathematics. So the mathematical equivalence is all there is. The issue doens't even arise in propositional logic since propositional logic isn't strong enough to even talk about whole numbers, let along real numbers.

What in the world do you think the tens of thousands of pages written on Zeno's paradoxes alone have been discussing? If you can discuss infinity dividing a distance, you are not talking about mathematics. 

You have a way over-inflated view of mathematics. It is not the end all. Only mathematicians who don't know anything about philosophy/metaphysics think that. 

And, yes, if we are talking about an infinite series of things, we are most certainly talking about mathematics.

Certainly not. The idea of an infinite series of things is not itself a mathematical concept. Grandizer likes to champion an infinite series of causes. Philosophers for millennium have discussed infinite regresses (and how to avoid them). The concept also comes up in religion, computer science, physics, engineering, and a bunch of other disciplines. 

Again, mathematics is no where near the center of the universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

No one cares, or ever has.  Infinite regress is not a contradiction.  It's a limit of a system, end of.

I'm sorry that the system you pretend to give a shit about..until it's not convenient, is incapable of reaching a conclusion in the case of infinite regress. Them's the breaks. Why don't you just invoke magic?

[RoadRunner79]

---

Do you see mathematical logic listed there by any chance? In fact, Aristotelian logic (syllogistic logic) is clearly described as having little more than historic value and being obsolete.

Logic is a subset of mathematics. You see, mathematics is the study of formal systems and logic consists of a few such systems. Propositional logic, predicate logic, even modal logic are *formal* systems and so are a part of math.

This is probably where you should have taken the intro to philosophy class before all your math classes. It skews reality for students to think they are the center of the world.

Mathematics is its own discipline. Math employs a type of logic: mathematical logic. There is a whole host of things that have to do with philosophy and logic that have nothing to do with math. (see the link I posted that discusses 9 different types of logic --a BRANCH of philospohy)

The two expressions have no meaning outside of mathematics. So the mathematical equivalence is all there is. The issue doens't even arise in propositional logic since propositional logic isn't strong enough to even talk about whole numbers, let along real numbers.

What in the world do you think the tens of thousands of pages written on Zeno's paradoxes alone have been discussing? If you can discuss infinity dividing a distance, you are not talking about mathematics. 

You have a way over-inflated view of mathematics. It is not the end all. Only mathematicians who don't know anything about philosophy/metaphysics think that. 

And, yes, if we are talking about an infinite series of things, we are most certainly talking about mathematics.

Certainly not. The idea of an infinite series of things is not itself a mathematical concept. Grandizer likes to champion an infinite series of causes. Philosophers for millennium have discussed infinite regresses (and how to avoid them). The concept also comes up in religion, computer science, physics, engineering, and a bunch of other disciplines. 

Again, mathematics is no where near the center of the universe.

---

I'm kind of guessing that you would agree; I think it's funny when people focus too much on one tool of knowledge to the extent of ignoring or disparaging the others. Math, science, logic are all just tools, and in some instances one tool is more useful than another. But I think that she may have you, in that the appeal to novelty fallacy sometimes seems to be one of the favorites here. I am thinking more and more, that poly is using the terms in the same way, and in the same meaning as that of Zeno's paradox. Which is why the contradictions are not seen.

[polymath257]

Do you see mathematical logic listed there by any chance? In fact, Aristotelian logic (syllogistic logic) is clearly described as having little more than historic value and being obsolete.

Logic is a subset of mathematics. You see, mathematics is the study of formal systems and logic consists of a few such systems. Propositional logic, predicate logic, even modal logic are *formal* systems and so are a part of math.

This is probably where you should have taken the intro to philosophy class before all your math classes. It skews reality for students to think they are the center of the world.

Mathematics is its own discipline. Math employs a type of logic: mathematical logic. There is a whole host of things that have to do with philosophy and logic that have nothing to do with math. (see the link I posted that discusses 9 different types of logic --a BRANCH of philospohy)

The two expressions have no meaning outside of mathematics. So the mathematical equivalence is all there is. The issue doens't even arise in propositional logic since propositional logic isn't strong enough to even talk about whole numbers, let along real numbers.

What in the world do you think the tens of thousands of pages written on Zeno's paradoxes alone have been discussing? If you can discuss infinity dividing a distance, you are not talking about mathematics. 

You have a way over-inflated view of mathematics. It is not the end all. Only mathematicians who don't know anything about philosophy/metaphysics think that. 

And, yes, if we are talking about an infinite series of things, we are most certainly talking about mathematics.

Certainly not. The idea of an infinite series of things is not itself a mathematical concept. Grandizer likes to champion an infinite series of causes. Philosophers for millennium have discussed infinite regresses (and how to avoid them). The concept also comes up in religion, computer science, physics, engineering, and a bunch of other disciplines. 

Again, mathematics is no where near the center of the universe.

And in computer science, physics, engineering, etc, the way it is discussed is through math, not philosophy. There is a good reason for that. Mathj is MUCH more logical and precise than philosophy will ever be.

It looks to me like you need to take a bit of your own advice: philosophy isn't the be all and end all of knowledge. At *best* it can explore possibilities. At worst, it leads to dogmatism and fanaticism.

I don't think math is th end all. But it is a MUCH better way to investigate ideas than philosophy as demonstrated by its track record. When there is a conflict between math and philosophy, I'll go for the math any day. But if there is a conflict between physics and philosophy, I'll go for the physics any day.

Those areas of logic that have nothing to do with math are those that are the least logical: Aristotelian 'logic' and informal logic. The rest: propositional, predicate, and modal, are ALL part of math.

By rejecting math (which you have done repeatedly), you are only showing your own ignorance. By insisting on ideas that were properly abandoned a century or more ago, you show yourself to be dogmatic. Until you can overcome those limitations, you have decided to give up on logic and rationality. And at that point, there is nothing worth saying.

I will continue to correct you when you are wrong in your math and physics. But your ideas about infinity are clearly outdated and too firmly held to be worth debating.

[The Grand Nudger]

Now we';re denying knowledge in and of itself because it....somehow.......rubs against a -very- narrow description of "god" beleif.

Jesus, fucking, Christ.......................................................