(June 22, 2013 at 10:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, since you keep asking for specifics, let me point out the obvious. Your proof fails at the definition of mutually exclusive sets. When you do this, arriving at the conclusion that they are mutually exclusive defines (literally) the process of begging the question.There is no begging of question because we/you defined those terms; if you don't agree then define new ones that I can use.
Quote:You are demanding that Set 1 be finite, and Set 2 be infinite. You then go on with a red herring/strawman about whether Set 1 is infinite (it can't be, because you've defined it not to be). You conclude that since Set 1 is finite, Set 2, which you've defined as infinite, cannot be correct.I didn't, I assumed that it may be finite, but it is impossible!
Quote:This is not an actual proof. It's just throwing incompatible premises together, and guiding the order of operations to choose which one I want to appear "true."This is just an assertion from your side, it is a solid proof.
Quote:S1 = all Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by seconds, where S1 must have at least three members (two to establish a timeframe, and one which is being measured).This irrelevant.
Quote:As an aside: if you have to work this hard to make something seem "true," you might want to consider the likely possibility that it is not.I don't just say that, I say that my premises are the strongest premises that can ever be used.