It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: OpinionatedB
Set theory. An attempt of placing definition on the undefinable. Definitely needed, and helpful really.
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm
To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.
My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.
my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.
No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.
originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: TzarChasm
"there are those who will die before reaching the top, never knowing happiness for having made it halfway. that is the curse of perfection. if you do not die while trying to attain it you will die trying to keep it."
We die if we do; we die if we don't.
I say we should try to cheer up this mortal coil.
originally posted by: compressedFusion
a reply to: spy66
I enjoyed reading both of your posts. I spent 1.5 hours going over your original response and this one. I think I should have written my original post as follows
A -> 1 = 2, where A is the statement (1 = 2).
By substitution
(1 = 2) -> (1 = 2)
I didn’t just randomly choose this contradiction. It embodies the nature of the omnipotence paradox. The paradox isn’t a result of applying logic to the definition of the word omnipotence. The paradox is the definition of our concept of omnipotence. It is very much like an inconsistent axiom.
I see that I misinterpreted your use of the term absolute. I think Cantor’s concept of breaking the infinite set down with a sub-multiplicity is relevant here. I see your argument.
I can’t fully comment on your reply because I don’t understand a pivotal point in your post. Take the set S=[A(1)]. You seem to be saying that S is absolute infinite because the cardinality of S is one. In addition the implication is that the universe consists of only this set S, therefore, is infinite. Is this an accurate assessment of your statement? If it is accurate then could you please explain how physical space relates to set theory?
I hope this isn’t drifting from the OPs original intent for this thread.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm
To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.
My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.
my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.
No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.
oh, i saw BS and thought id drop a line on it. maybe im not the only one who feels your concept has a few holes in it.
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm
To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.
My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.
my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.
No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.
oh, i saw BS and thought id drop a line on it. maybe im not the only one who feels your concept has a few holes in it.
I am used to People saying BS. And never putting anything on the table to correct where i have made a mistake.
That means you are not giving anything usfull to the topic. And you are not helping me.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm
To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.
My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.
my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.
No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.
oh, i saw BS and thought id drop a line on it. maybe im not the only one who feels your concept has a few holes in it.
I am used to People saying BS. And never putting anything on the table to correct where i have made a mistake.
That means you are not giving anything usfull to the topic. And you are not helping me.
1 =/= 2 theres your correction. one does not equal two. and 'A' is not infinite because 1 is not infinite, so thats scuppered as well. show me a mathematical theorem that proves your statement and i will concede. all you have to do is show me. save the excuses for someone else.
How did you get 1 = / = 2 from the Equation A -> (1 = 2) ?
The Equation: A -> (1 = 2) or 1 = 2 is false within mathematics.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66
How did you get 1 = / = 2 from the Equation A -> (1 = 2) ?
its an invalid supposition. unless you can prove it is valid.
The Equation: A -> (1 = 2) or 1 = 2 is false within mathematics.
thats what ive been saying!
originally posted by: spy66
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66
How did you get 1 = / = 2 from the Equation A -> (1 = 2) ?
its an invalid supposition. unless you can prove it is valid.
The Equation: A -> (1 = 2) or 1 = 2 is false within mathematics.
thats what ive been saying!
But i could still explain the consept non the less. And that is what i did.