• 🏆 Texturing Contest #33 is OPEN! Contestants must re-texture a SD unit model found in-game (Warcraft 3 Classic), recreating the unit into a peaceful NPC version. 🔗Click here to enter!
  • It's time for the first HD Modeling Contest of 2024. Join the theme discussion for Hive's HD Modeling Contest #6! Click here to post your idea!
HINDYhat
Reaction score
119

Profile posts Latest activity Postings Experience Albums Resources About Medals

  • I really can't tell if TRD is issuing some loaded philosophical thesis about wrenches, or just quarters incoherent paragraphs from some miles-beside-the-point authority. In either case it's foreign so you should kill it, bury it and leave it to rot.

    I don't think you'll ever be able to squeeze out any sign of relent from that man.
    I was going to write a long article explaining why you are wrong, but then I took an arrow in the knee, so I'll make this short.

    Firstly your attitude and the way you assume that everyone who don't think like you are retarded, makes it obvious you're not able to think rationally or critically. Never claim to be right, and then say everyone else are retards/infidels. It just makes you look like one of those religious people. Now, seeing how you are clearly unable to contain yourself and act in a proper manner, it's clear your mental capabilities are lessened, and thus this degrades the credibility of your statements. Nevertheless, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    But sadly, I saw you failed with some division up there (you fixed it later though, but this proves my previous point.). Also, you did a big mistake. You say yourself that the limit of 1 - 0.999... = 0, but then suddenly the limit is gone and 1 = 0.999...
    Seriously? You haven't proved anything other than that you fail prove it (And fail to think rationally, which explains why you deny my proofs). Btw, I know what 1 - 0.999... is. It's not 0, it's something mathematicians call a <span style="font-size: 22px">HYPERREAL</span>. Did you see that? I hope so. I yelled the word hyperreal at DSG and azlier 9001 times in chat, but they never saw it, or they refused to see it, because it destroyed the point that they had. One neat hyperreal is 1/infinity, which at least DSG and azlier claim to be 0. It's not.

    Btw, the limit of 0.999... isn't 0.999..., it's 1. Note the limit.
    <span style="font-size: 22px">MERRY CHRISTMAS </span>
    <span style="font-size: 26px">BITCHES</span>

    3 days? That's like five and a dozen exaseconds. That adds up to... I don't know how many cosmological decades.

    Oh, and ~:=~beckoning~=:~
    The Medicine go do-awn, the Medicine go down
    A spoon full of Hindy makes the Medicine go dooooown
    In the most de-li-ght-full waaaaaaaaaaay!
    I deleted a picture in your album. Guess which one?
    Don't upload pictures like that one again.
    You have yet to prove that there are many kinds of infinities. Also, the proofs are denying the fact that you cannot have something greater than infinity. If you add something to infinity, it's still infinity. It's a simple concept.

    And I brought up the quote because of the content of the quote (which is btw listed on the infinity article on wikipedia)
    ----------
    Yes, you can. For example, the reals are infinitely larger than the naturals.
    ----------
    If both sets are infinitely long, they are just as long.


    ----------
    In fact, there are infinitely many different kinds of infinities
    ----------
    No there aren't. Many sets are infinite, but there aren't different kinds of infinities.


    ----------
    You can't operate on infinity like you would any other number
    ----------
    Holy shit, I just got a deja-vu feeling. I remember saying something just like this in chat. Nobody believed me though.


    ----------
    According to your intuition, this should be larger than the set of complex numbers, which according to your x > y shit, the complex numbers would be finite (which you seem to refuse to accept).
    ----------
    I'm not quite getting what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that I would say it's finite, but I wouldn't accept it myself? Is that it?
    Also, you're not getting the X>Y argument. If you can increment a value, then it hasn't quite reached infinity yet.


    ----------
    The x > y stuff _does not work_. You are assuming that there is only one infinity, but there are several.
    ----------
    As explained above, there aren't many different infinities. The X>Y stuff does work.


    ----------
    Also, yes, something is finite or it is infinite (though there are many kinds of infinities). It cannot be anything in between.
    ----------
    I would argue that in some cases, something can switch between being finite or infinite depending on the circumstances.

    And for the rest, it would appear it was irrelevant afterall.

    Btw, an interesting quote:
    "if you remove a part from infinity or add a part to infinity, still what remains is infinity"
    ~Isha Upanishad
    ----------
    I don't know why you believe that the set of naturals is finite. If it's finite, then there is a largest natural number N. If n is natural, then n+1 is natural. So N+1 is natural too, which is impossible since N is the largest natural number. That should be enough to say that the set of naturals is infinite.
    ----------
    You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's finite, but it's not entirely infinite either. I'll get back to that further down.


    ----------
    Nowhere is it required that sqrt(n) be a natural number.
    ----------
    So the entire thing in the box was just utterly meaningless? Obviously there would be a sqrt(n), and a sqrt(sqrt(n)) for every n if you're not bound to natural numbers....
    ----------
    I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just don't know what you're getting at.
    I'm not sure what the question is about the length of the line. Do you want me to say that it's infinite? Of course it's infinite, since the size of the naturals is infinite. Adding the reals makes the line infinitely longer (this is not obvious).
    ----------
    You cannot make something that is already infinite larger in any way. infinity+1 is still infinity.
    Say X is the size of complex numbers+natural numbers, and Y is the size of natural numbers only, then if X > Y, then Y cannot be infinite, as nothing can be greater than infinity. I thought you knew that.
    You're trying to avoid the question...


    ----------
    If you represent all natural numbers on a line, then note that it's discrete i.e. there is some fragment of the line that can no longer be broken into smaller parts (since there is no natural between n and n+1). Its length is the size of the naturals.
    ----------
    "Its length is its length", yeah very nice argument. What is the length?


    ----------
    I don't think it's possible to represent the complex numbers on a line anyway (you need a plane, intuitively since as a vector space over the reals, it has dimension 2). But whatever, you can represent the reals on a line (I don't know why you keep talking about the complex numbers anyway), so we'll just roll with that.
    ----------
    Avoiding again. Just imagine putting them on the line. What is the length of the line now?
    ----------
    However, by your intuition, the set of naturals would 'obviously' be larger than the set of squares of naturals.
    ----------
    No it wouldn't. If the set of naturals is infinitely long, then yes, that would be true. If it has a finite size, it would not be true. It would only be true then if for every n there is a natural number sqrt(n) associated to it. Sqrt(2) is not a natural number, so already there it's screwed. Why must there be a sqrt(n)? Because every n² would also count as an n.
    So fun that you left when I finally came up with a way of visualizing my reasoning. I know I suck at explaining things, but I always have a reason for saying what I do.

    The amount of natural numbers are in a way finite, but we cannot pinpoint its size.

    Consider a line. On this line all natural numbers are represented. How long is it? Now add the complex numbers in the line. Their position is completely arbitrary. The line is obviously longer now, but how long is it? Now define your own numbers and add it to the line. How long is it now? Once again it must be longer than it was before and remember that no natural number can ever be greater than infinity.
    ----------
    I am scatter-[rainbow]br[/rainbow]ai <span style="font-size: 12px">N</span>
    ----------
    [rainbow]UwWaaAAhHHHhHhHH~~[/rainbow]
    Wow! I never expected I would find Mother fans in hive, this makes me H.A.P.P.Y =D
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top