Was a question now a debate, infinite outcomes in Finite amount of time?

Vanlore · Nov 3, 2008

<p><font size="2">Ok I am not a expert at this but I was just wondering if someone can help me understand this better. Is it possible to have an infinite amount of results or outcomes in a finite amount of time? Like I mean this in the context to reality. And I would also like to know this in the context of math itself. And if there is a difference in the context of it in actual reality vs just math. Sorry if I need to explain my question more let me know and thank you for taking the time to read this.</font></p><p> </p><p><font size="2">Vanlore </font><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </p><p> </p><p><span class="fs5"><br /></span></p>

Vanlore · Nov 3, 2008

<font size="2">Ok after studying this myself I think it is a error  of logic. You can never complete  a infinite amount of anything because infinite is always changeing or adding or subtracting. The second you obtain a infinite amount of anything by definition it would no longer be infinite, it would be finite. So it is like having 2 clocks. It is like saying clock 1 is going to count to 60 and stop. clock 2 is going to keep counting and never stop. When clock 1 gets to 60 it stops. Clock 2 never stops. Speed has no relevance on the fact that it never stops. You could say that the speed </font> <font size="2">increases infinitely but that has no </font> <font size="2">relevance</font>  <font size="2">on clock that does not stop. </font><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-yell.gif" border="0" alt="Yell" title="Yell" />

DrRocket · Nov 3, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok I am not a expert at this but I was just wondering if someone can help me understand this better. Is it possible to have an infinite amount of results or outcomes in a finite amount of time? Like I mean this in the context to reality. And I would also like to know this in the context of math itself. And if there is a difference in the context of it in actual reality vs just math. Sorry if I need to explain my question more let me know and thank you for taking the time to read this. Vanlore   <br />Posted by Vanlore</DIV></p><p>Yes, but not if there is limit to how quickly those outcomes can occur.  This is simply the fact that you can add up an infinite number of things and get a finite result.  That is exactly what happens with an infinite series.  For instance the sum of 1/(2^n) for n running from 1 to infinity is 1.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Vanlore · Nov 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, but not if there is limit to how quickly those outcomes can occur.  This is simply the fact that you can add up an infinite number of things and get a finite result.  That is exactly what happens with an infinite series.  For instance the sum of 1/(2^n) for n running from 1 to infinity is 1.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> <font size="2">(     ) = (error)</font></p><p><font size="2">Yes but that is still a error in logic. Your saying if there was a (limit) how quickly the (outcome) of infinity is BUT there is NO OUTCOME lol if there was a outcome than it would not be infinite. You can not add up infinite things because you  NEVER STOP adding lol so you would never complete the process of adding. If you did add something up and STOP counting at ANY point it would be by definition be Fininite. </font></p><p><font size="2"> </font><font size="2">1. Limit implys a end to a process that is the oppisite of a process that never ends. 2. outcome implys something complete that is the oppisite of something that never stops.</font></p> <h3 class="r">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle<font size="2">A <font size="2"> circle</font> is never a<font size="2"> triangle</font>. The very instant it became a Triangle by definition it would no longer be a circle. So to say that it is anything but itself is a error of logic.</font> </h3> <p> </p>

DrRocket · Nov 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> (     ) = (error)Yes but that is still a error in logic. Your saying if there was a (limit) how quickly the (outcome) of infinity is BUT there is NO OUTCOME lol if there was a outcome than it would not be infinite. You can not add up infinite things because you  NEVER STOP adding lol so you would never complete the process of adding. If you did add something up and STOP counting at ANY point it would be by definition be Fininite.  1. Limit implys a end to a process that is the oppisite of a process that never ends. 2. outcome implys something complete that is the oppisite of something that never stops. A  circle is never a triangle. The very instant it became a Triangle by definition it would no longer be a circle. So to say that it is anything but itself is a error of logic.   <br />Posted by Vanlore</DIV></p><p>The error in logic is yours.  In fact your error is a rather well known on, a variation on what is known as Zeno's Paradox.</p><p>The classic version of Zeno's Paradox goes something like this (from Wikipedia):</p><p>In the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, Achilles is in a footrace with the tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head start of 100 feet. If we suppose that each racer starts running at some constant speed (one very fast and one very slow), then after some finite time, Achilles will have run 100 feet, bringing him to the tortoise's starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter distance, for example 10 feet. It will then take Achilles some further time to run that distance, in which time the tortoise will have advanced farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles reaches somewhere the tortoise has been, he still has farther to go. Therefore, because there are an infinite number of points Achilles must reach where the tortoise has already been--he can never overtake the tortoise. <sup class="reference">[4]</sup><sup class="reference">[5]</sup> if expressed in better words the condition is that for each run in a discetely diminishing intervals of time the faster one should conditionally reach that of the turtle (and never overtaking it)The inherent condition is that achilles should not overtake the turtle. If well expressed this ceases to be a paradox. However this brings in the concept of infitismally small distances, so very essential and often used in calculus.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy_paradox</p><p>Clearly Achilles could catch the tortoise.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SHU · Nov 9, 2008

<p><font size="2">So, this guy falls in love with this girl but she's too young so he decides to wait.  He's 40 and she's only 10.  He's 4 times as old.  In 5 years, he's 45 and she's 15.  Now, he's only 3 times as old.  He waits 15 more years until he's 60 and she's 30.  Only twice as old.  How long before she catches up?  .......... The Abbott and Costello paradox.</font></p><p> </p>

weeman · Nov 11, 2008

<p>Isn't Zeno's paradox also based on the idea that you can infinitely approach your destination by moving closer and closer? </p><p>For example, If you are 50ft from a wall, you can cut it in half by moving to 25ft from the wall. You can cut that in half again by moving 12.5ft from the wall, and so on. Doesn't Zeno's paradox state that you can infinitely move closer to the wall without actually reaching it? Thus giving the hypothetical situation that an infinite system exists within finite boundries? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 11, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Isn't Zeno's paradox also based on the idea that you can infinitely approach your destination by moving closer and closer? For example, If you are 50ft from a wall, you can cut it in half by moving to 25ft from the wall. You can cut that in half again by moving 12.5ft from the wall, and so on. Doesn't Zeno's paradox state that you can infinitely move closer to the wall without actually reaching it? Thus giving the hypothetical situation that an infinite system exists within finite boundries? <br />Posted by weeman</DIV></p><p>That is another way of stating Zeno's paradox.  The idea is that there are infinitely many steps cutting the distance in half and therefore you never reach the destination.  The fallacy is that you can add up infinitely many things and still get a finite answer.  For instance, suppose that a whole step takes one second, a half step a half second, and so on.  Then the time required to take infinitely many steps each 1/2 the length of the previous step is </p><p>1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1</p><p>It is not that you "infinitely move closer" or that there is an "infinite system within finite boundaries", but more precisely that the process is broken down into an infinite number of steps.  But since the size of those steps is decreasing rapidly enough they add up to something that is in fact finite.  This is really a simple matter of what is called the theory of infinite series in elementary calculus courses.</p><p>You need to be a bit careful with the idea of infinity.  There are many popular misconceptions about it.  There are in fact different sizes of infinity and the study of those sizes is part of what is called cardinal and ordinal numbers.  Cardinal numbers describe the size of sets.  For instancd there are infinitely many natural numbers ( 0,1,2,3,...) and infinitely many real numbers (numbers associated with postitions on the number line) but there are so many real numbers that you cannot put them in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (mathematicians say that the real numbers are "uncountable") and the size of infinity corresponding to the real numbers is greater than the size of infinity corresposnding to the natural numbers.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Vanlore · Nov 12, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is another way of stating Zeno's paradox.  The idea is that there are infinitely many steps cutting the distance in half and therefore you never reach the destination.  The fallacy is that you can add up infinitely many things and still get a finite answer.  For instance, suppose that a whole step takes one second, a half step a half second, and so on.  Then the time required to take infinitely many steps each 1/2 the length of the previous step is 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1It is not that you "infinitely move closer" or that there is an "infinite system within finite boundaries", but more precisely that the process is broken down into an infinite number of steps.  But since the size of those steps is decreasing rapidly enough they add up to something that is in fact finite.  This is really a simple matter of what is called the theory of infinite series in elementary calculus courses.You need to be a bit careful with the idea of infinity.  There are many popular misconceptions about it.  There are in fact different sizes of infinity and the study of those sizes is part of what is called cardinal and ordinal numbers.  Cardinal numbers describe the size of sets.  For instancd there are infinitely many natural numbers ( 0,1,2,3,...) and infinitely many real numbers (numbers associated with postitions on the number line) but there are so many real numbers that you cannot put them in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (mathematicians say that the real numbers are "uncountable") and the size of infinity corresponding to the real numbers is greater than the size of infinity corresposnding to the natural numbers. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> </p><p><font size="2">You do not add up a infinite amount of numbers you keep adding and never stop. So the entire thing is a contradiction. </font><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-sealed.gif" border="0" alt="Sealed" title="Sealed" />. <font size="2"> I know you understand a great deal more about math then me and I have a great respect for you because of this but I just think that allot of these people that get caught up in too much in these theoretical things loose sight of what is real and what is not.  We both know that it is not possible to park my truck in my shoe because it does not fit. This type of logic just seems to come natural to me.</font></p><p> </p><p><font size="2">Listen this is what your actually saying, Clock X will count to 60 and stop. Clock Y will count and Never stop. When Clock X gets to 60,  Clock Y will finish never stopping.</font></p><p> </p><p><font size="2">Now what is wrong with this logic. If it finishes never stopping then it is still going lol because nothing changed so after 60 it finished never stopping so when 61 comes,  it is still going so you can not put a stop on something that never stops. It is like saying I'm going to put the universe inside my pocket. It is not a paradox it is a error of simple logic.  </font><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" /></p><p><font size="2">The point is it is a error to say something finished and never. Sure you can say that but you can say anything. It is a contradiction to say something finished never stopping. </font> </p><p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><font size="2">A <font size="2"> circle</font> is never a<font size="2"> triangle</font>. The very instant it became a Triangle by definition it would no longer be a circle. So to say that it is anything but itself is a error of logic.</font></font></p><p> </p><p> </p>

DrRocket · Nov 12, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You do not add up a infinite amount of numbers you keep adding and never stop. So the entire thing is a contradiction. .  I know you understand a great deal more about math then me and I have a great respect for you because of this but I just think that allot of these people that get caught up in too much in these theoretical things loose sight of what is real and what is not.  We both know that it is not possible to park my truck in my shoe because it does not fit. This type of logic just seems to come natural to me. Listen this is what your actually saying, Clock X will count to 60 and stop. Clock Y will count and Never stop. When Clock X gets to 60,  Clock Y will finish never stopping. Now what is wrong with this logic. If it finishes never stopping then it is still going lol because nothing changed so after 60 it finished never stopping so when 61 comes,  it is still going so you can not put a stop on something that never stops. It is like saying I'm going to put the universe inside my pocket. It is not a paradox it is a error of simple logic.   A  circle is never a triangle. The very instant it became a Triangle by definition it would no longer be a circle. So to say that it is anything but itself is a error of logic.   <br />Posted by Vanlore</DIV></p><p>No it is not an error in logic.  You can indeed add up an infinite number of things.  I have done it myself many times.  Here, I'll do it again:</p><p>1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1</p><p>I can make this very precise and very rigorous.</p><p>The fallacy in your argument is that you assume that this must be a physical process and that each step must require a fixed length of time.  That is simply not the case.  One can use more sophisticated methods and one can add up infinitely many quantities.</p><p>Now, you cannot do this with a computer, since each step in a computer requires a fixed finite time step, and no matter how small that time step is, an infintite number of them would require an infinite amount of time.  But that is not what is going on here.  We are not talking about machines.</p><p>Circles are not triangles.  I agree. So what?</p><p>As to being able to cut up the universe and put in in your pocket, that is a somewhat stickier question.  Let's replace the universe by the sun, since we know that the sun is finite.  You obviously cannot physically cut up the sun and put it in your pocket.  But there is a decomposition of the sun, into some <strong>very strange</strong> pieces, that can be re-assembled inside a sphere of arbitrarily small dimension.  Here is a thread on this topic http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3a2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion%3af3b2230f-f442-4c65-8d43-3c14a611d328<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 19, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it possible to have an infinite amount of results or outcomes in a finite amount of time? <font color="#ff0000">Like I mean this in the context to reality.</font> And I would also like to know this in the context of math itself. And if there is a difference in the context of it in actual reality vs just math. Sorry if I need to explain my question more let me know and thank you for taking the time to read this. Vanlore   <br />Posted by Vanlore</DIV><br /><br />In actual reality within our universe you are limited to processes that do not exceed the speed of light.  So the answer would be no IMHO  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>

why06 · Nov 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok I am not a expert at this but I was just wondering if someone can help me understand this better. Is it possible to have an infinite amount of results or outcomes in a finite amount of time? Like I mean this in the context to reality. And I would also like to know this in the context of math itself. And if there is a difference in the context of it in actual reality vs just math. Sorry if I need to explain my question more let me know and thank you for taking the time to read this. Vanlore   <br /> Posted by Vanlore</DIV></p><p>Mathematically: Yes</p><p>Realistically: No </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, but not if there is limit to how quickly those outcomes can occur.  This is simply the fact that you can add up an infinite number of things and get a finite result.  That is exactly what happens with an infinite series.  For instance the sum of 1/(2^n) for n running from 1 to infinity is 1.  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>One more time:</p><p>Yes (the mathematical answer), but not if there is a limit to how quickly those outcomes can occur (the physical answer).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Nov 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it is not an error in logic.  You can indeed add up an infinite number of things.  I have done it myself many times.  Here, I'll do it again:1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ... = 1I can make this very precise and very rigorous.The fallacy in your argument is that you assume that this must be a physical process and that each step must require a fixed length of time.  That is simply not the case.  One can use more sophisticated methods and one can add up infinitely many quantities.Now, you cannot do this with a computer, since each step in a computer requires a fixed finite time step, and no matter how small that time step is, an infintite number of them would require an infinite amount of time.  But that is not what is going on here.  We are not talking about machines.Circles are not triangles.  I agree. So what?As to being able to cut up the universe and put in in your pocket, that is a somewhat stickier question.  Let's replace the universe by the sun, since we know that the sun is finite.  You obviously cannot physically cut up the sun and put it in your pocket.  But there is a decomposition of the sun, into some very strange pieces, that can be re-assembled inside a sphere of arbitrarily small dimension.  Here is a thread on this topic http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3a2f3143ad-161c-461f-b1e1-f88bf188e3cfDiscussion%3af3b2230f-f442-4c65-8d43-3c14a611d328 <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p> </p><p>But both mathematically and natrually any addition through division like you did, does not equal one.  This is the premise behind geomertry, sphericals and circumference...Pie (3.14).  If that division did equal one, we would have no curves.</p><p> And I like Feynman's retort to infinite division.  "It all stops at the atom anyway." </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Nov 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But both mathematically and natrually any addition through division like you did, does not equal one.</DIV></p><p>What are you talking about?  What I did can be made completely rigorous.  See any elementary calculus book.  This is very standard stuff.  It's been known for hundreds of years.  And it has nothing whatever to do with "addition through division".  In fact there is not such thing as "addition through division"/</p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> This is the premise behind geomertry, sphericals and circumference...Pie (3.14).</DIV></p><p>Huh?  That statement is just gibberish.  It doesn't even have enough content for me to be able to isolate what is wrong.  Nonsense.</p><p> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If that division did equal one, we would have no curves. And I like Feynman's retort to infinite division.  "It all stops at the atom anyway." <br />Posted by nova_explored</DIV></p><p>That series does add up to one.  But I just checked and we do still have a couple of curves.  Your assertion is just more nonsense.</p><p>I am pretty familiar with Feynman, but I do not recognize that quote.  I suspect that you have taken it out of context.  It is pretty clear that you don't understand his work in any case.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SteveD156 · Nov 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mathematically: YesRealistically: No <br /> Posted by why06</DIV></p><p>You know in hindsight its not that simple. let me correct myself because Even realistically It would be possible to do an infinite amount of things in a finite amount. This has to do with varying the speed of light and then observing the universe for an outside perspective. In the universe being observed light is asymtopically speeding up as it approaches the end of time, so for everyone within this universe with no outside perspective the will have an infinite amount of time, but for the guy observing it from an outside perspective in which the speed of light remains constant then all this infinity could pass by in a second. So yeah you could do an infinite amount of things in a set amount of time, however from the perspective of the one doing them it would be an infinite amount of time. So I suppose my answer sholud be written instead:</p><p>Mathematically: Yes</p><p>Realistically: </p><p><font color="#ff0000"><em>You</em></font> can <strong>NOT</strong> do an infinite # of things in a finite amount of time. </p><p><font color="#800000"><em>He</em></font> can do a infinite amount of things in a finite amount of time.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

nova_explored · Dec 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What are you talking about?  What I did can be made completely rigorous.  See any elementary calculus book.  This is very standard stuff.  It's been known for hundreds of years.  And it has nothing whatever to do with "addition through division".  In fact there is not such thing as "addition through division"/ Huh?  That statement is just gibberish.  It doesn't even have enough content for me to be able to isolate what is wrong.  Nonsense. That series does add up to one.  But I just checked and we do still have a couple of curves.  Your assertion is just more nonsense.I am pretty familiar with Feynman, but I do not recognize that quote.  I suspect that you have taken it out of context.  It is pretty clear that you don't understand his work in any case.  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>If you can, I'd like you to take your assertion of fractions equaling 1 and show as much with your process above and then show the equation that proves that (the theorem can be involved).  I mean you wrote in your post that fractions added together will equal one (and then retort with confusion when i write ...division (fractions my man) added together...). </p><p> Look at Feynman again oh great one.  Not out of context at all.  Ironically he was addressing this very thing.  </p><p> As for the angry assertions? just show your proof, don't say you have 'done it many times', and that is the resolution to your factotum argument.</p><p> Now go brush up with your general relativity.  I mean, your the master here as confidence is asserting here, so you should know that no straight line in the universe exists.  SO when we deal with lines, we are dealing with truly mathematical concepts.  The 'line' of our rulers are a best guess ( a very precise one, but without any standard, any true model, a line is an abstract concept). So again you should be able to prove how fractals equal a whole (you can use that elementary calculus).  just prove it with a mathematical theory please.   </p><p> </p><p>using elementary calculus I can prove how fractals will not.  And thus why Pi is a fractal by purest definition.  Through theorem and formula it is proven.  I mean scientists didn't just give up and say, you know forget it, we don't think Pi has an ending, we'll just call it infinite. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Dec 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you can, I'd like you to take your assertion of fractions equaling 1 and show as much with your process above and then show the equation that proves that (the theorem can be involved).  I mean you wrote in your post that fractions added together will equal one (and then retort with confusion when i write ...division (fractions my man) added together...).  Look at Feynman again oh great one.  Not out of context at all.  Ironically he was addressing this very thing.   As for the angry assertions? just show your proof, don't say you have 'done it many times', and that is the resolution to your factotum argument. Now go brush up with your general relativity.  I mean, your the master here as confidence is asserting here, so you should know that no straight line in the universe exists.  SO when we deal with lines, we are dealing with truly mathematical concepts.  The 'line' of our rulers are a best guess ( a very precise one, but without any standard, any true model, a line is an abstract concept). So again you should be able to prove how fractals equal a whole (you can use that elementary calculus).  just prove it with a mathematical theory please.    using elementary calculus I can prove how fractals will not.  And thus why Pi is a fractal by purest definition.  Through theorem and formula it is proven.  I mean scientists didn't just give up and say, you know forget it, we don't think Pi has an ending, we'll just call it infinite.   <br />Posted by nova_explored</DIV></p><p> If fyou understand calculus then you should already have seen this.  </p><p>X + X^2 +X^3 + ... + X^n = [ X - X^(n+1)]/[1 - X]</p><p>You ought to be able to prove this for yourself.  There are couple of ways to do it.  One, often seen in high school is to proceed by induction on n.  There is an easier way if you can find it. </p><p>Take the limit as n increases without bound to conclude that for X<1,</p><p>X + X^2 + X^3 + ... = X/(1 - X) </p><p>Substitute X = 1/2 to find that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1</p><p>Your statement regarding general relativity and lines is roughly correct, in general relativity one deals with geodesics in a curved space-time.  So what ?  Of course lines are an abstract concept.  So are geodesics.  So is a manifold and hence so is space-time.  </p><p>You statement regarding fractals is nonsense.  Utter gibberish.  Your statement that "fractals equals a whole" is completely meaningless.  A fractal is a topological spece that happens to have a fractional (non-integer) topological dimension.  Just to explain what that means is WAY beyond calculus.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Jan 7, 2009

<p>WOw, just checked back on this.  Everything is utter gibbersih to you, i'm starting to see.  ANd as for fractals equaling a whole being meaningless... </p><p>its not beyond calculus.  IRRC, your point about geodesics is graphs...algebraic functions...and calculus.</p><p> </p><p>and i'm sorry to do this, but you need to be called out, so if anything you stop your egoistic rants that are derisive to anyone in your supreme path.</p><p>your x to the n--limit equation is well known.  And no where does it ever equal one.  Firstly.  Secondly, not only does it not equal one, when u 'assume' that x is less than 1, fractions, it approaches one AND never reaches it. </p><p>The equation is simply a summation of inifinity.  So you have successfully proven yourself wrong.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 7, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>WOw, just checked back on this.  Everything is utter gibbersih to you, i'm starting to see.  ANd as for fractals equaling a whole being meaningless... its not beyond calculus.  IRRC, your point about geodesics is graphs...algebraic functions...and calculus. and i'm sorry to do this, but you need to be called out, so if anything you stop your egoistic rants that are derisive to anyone in your supreme path.your x to the n--limit equation is well known.  And no where does it ever equal one.  Firstly.  Secondly, not only does it not equal one, when u 'assume' that x is less than 1, fractions, it approaches one AND never reaches it. The equation is simply a summation of inifinity.  So you have successfully proven yourself wrong.  <br />Posted by nova_explored</DIV></p><p><br /> Sorry, but the gibberish is entirely on your part.</p><p>If you would care to "call me out" then feel free to try.  But you will have to speak precisely and not in the manner that you used thus far.  It makes no sense.</p><p>Rather than having proven myself wrong, I have shown you the meaning of a specific infinite series and have provided you a rigorous proof that the sum is in fact 1.  OF COURSE there is a limiting operation, that is implicit in the definition of the sum of an infinite series.</p><p>You have a fundamental problem -- you don't know what you are talking about.  Not a clue.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jan 7, 2009

Must be from the .999... does not equal 1 camp. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

jim48 · Jan 7, 2009

<strong><font size="2">Sorry for being late to arrive on this one. Busy as always. As the only true, bonafide, honest-to-God, genuine scientist out here, the answer to your question is a resounding Y<em>es!</em> I regret not being able to get to this thread earlier. <em>Whew!</em> That was close! Good research on your part. Stay in touch!</font></strong> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jan 7, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry for being late to arrive on this one. Busy as always. As the only true, bonafide, honest-to-God, genuine scientist out here, the answer to your question is a resounding Yes! I regret not being able to get to this thread earlier. Whew! That was close! Good research on your part. Stay in touch! <br /> Posted by jim48</DIV></p><p>Your interjections have become infinitely annoying in a finite amount of time. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jan 7, 2009

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry for being late to arrive on this one. Busy as always. As the only true, bonafide, honest-to-God, genuine scientist out here, the answer to your question is a resounding Yes! I regret not being able to get to this thread earlier. Whew! That was close! Good research on your part. Stay in touch! <br />Posted by jim48</DIV><br /><br />The tolerance level for these useless posts in Science fora is reaching critical levels. I'd suggest you dial it back quickly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

DrRocket · Jan 8, 2009

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your interjections have become infinitely annoying in a finite amount of time. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Which points out the merit of units</p><p> zero content = infinite annoyance.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Was a question now a debate, infinite outcomes in Finite amount of time?

Vanlore

Guest

Vanlore

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Vanlore

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

SHU

Guest

weeman

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Vanlore

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

why06

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

SteveD156

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

jim48

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page