A relative failure

Simply put: ½ is simply one half of some value.

A value over an infinite number would be the same size
relative to the infinite no matter how big we made the
divisor of the infinite unless we put the infinite over the
infinite. Now if that is true, if I were to say we start
doubling our divisor each second relatively speaking
the value would always remain the same as it relates to the
the infinite; however, that also means looking at it relative
to the infinite we have a failure or an inability to grasp
what is going on with the divisor, we have a blind spot,
we cannot see the divisor being doubled each second,
even if we were to double it through out all time.

This is why I think people cannot see time before the
Big Bang, they have setup blinders to view or grasp it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Simply put: ½ is simply one half of some value.

A value over an infinite number would be the same size
relative to the infinite no matter how big we made the
divisor of the infinite unless we put the infinite over the
infinite. Now if that is true, if I were to say we start
doubling our divisor each second relatively speaking
the value would always ...[text shortened]... eople cannot see time before the
Big Bang, they have setup blinders to view or grasp it.
Kelly

you cannot halve something with no boundaries. Halving is necessarily dependant upon a distinct lack of infinity, so I don't think your post makes much sense.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Simply put: ½ is simply one half of some value.

Namely, 1.

But 1/2 is hardly unique in this regard. Any rational number is one half of some value. For example, 8 is one half of 16.

Further, 1/2 is simply one third of some value, namely 1.5. And as above, every rational number is one third of some value. For example, 8 is one third of 24.

However, I don't see what bearing your claim has on the rest of your post, primarily because the rest of your post makes no sense.

Originally posted by Starrman
you cannot halve something with no boundaries. Halving is necessarily dependant upon a distinct lack of infinity

Consider the set Z' of positive and negative integers, the set Z+ of positive integers, and the set Z- of negative integers.

Z' has infinite cardinality, by a trivial application of the Principle of Mathematical Induction.

Z+ constitutes one half of Z', as for each element z in Z+, there exist exactly two corresponding elements in Z', namely z and -z. Z- constitutes the other half of Z', for a similar reason.

Thus, one can halve Z' by constructing Z+ and Z-, disjoint sets of equal cardinality whose union is Z', and one will have halved something with no boundaries.

Starrman just got mathematically served. Poor guy. 🙁

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Consider the set Z' of positive and negative integers, the set Z+ of positive integers, and the set Z- of negative integers.

Z' has infinite cardinality, by a trivial application of the Principle of Mathematical Induction.

Z+ constitutes one half of Z', as for each element z in Z+, there exist exactly two corresponding elements in Z', namely z ...[text shortened]... ual cardinality whose union is Z', and one will have halved something with no boundaries.

Okay, I'm not a big maths brain, but but doesn't this rest on the notion of a negative mirror of a positive infinite? Kelly's example rests on a positively advancing set with no possible negative mirror from which you would be able to construct Z' Can you halve a set which advances infinitely from zero?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Namely, 1.

But 1/2 is hardly unique in this regard. Any rational number is one half of some value. For example, 8 is one half of 16.

Further, 1/2 is simply one third of some value, namely 1.5. And as above, every rational number is one third of some value. For example, 8 is one third of 24.

However, I don't see what bearing your claim has on the rest of your post, primarily because the rest of your post makes no sense.

I didn't bother to read Kelly's post, but is there some weird notion of the word "value" that stops you saying any real number*, is half of some value?

Originally posted by Starrman
Can you halve a set which advances infinitely from zero?

No. The negative mirror is not essential.

Dr. S's post is precisely what I used to illustrate the idea of an isomorphism that time that I puked everywhere:

The set Z+ adnvances infinitely from zero (as you put it), but any way you "halve" it (say, by taking the set of even integers) gives a set with exactly the same cardinality. Indeed, for any integer m, you can take the "mth part" of it, by, say, just choosing the multiples of m, but the resulting set will still be of the same cardinality, because you can pair 1 with m, 2 with 2m, 3 with 3m ... m with m^2, etc, and never run out of integers or multiples of m. Dr. S has used a silly definition of "halve", but he's only done so because Kelly used the word "halve" to mean two different things in his post.

And now that we see that halving a set with infinite boundaries is possible, doesn't Kelly's post seem more clear now? 😛

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
No. The negative mirror is not essential.

Dr. S's post is precisely what I used to illustrate the idea of an isomorphism that time that I puked everywhere:

The set Z+ adnvances infinitely from zero (as you put it), but any way you "halve" it (say, by taking the set of even integers) gives a set with exactly the same cardinality. Indeed, for any ...[text shortened]... done so because Kelly used the word "halve" to mean two different things in his post.

Okay, thank you for helping me make the decision on whether or not to do philosophy of maths as my option next year...

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Any rational number is one half of some value.

I agree with Starrman.

Dr. S hit the thing right on the whatsit when he said the above.

The rationality of the number is in question here. Kelly specifically set out to divide infinity. Now, if we can give infinity a specific value (i.e. turn it into a rational number) then it fails to be infinite anymore - it's just a very large finite number.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
I didn't bother to read Kelly's post, but is there some weird notion of the word "value" that stops you saying any real number*, is half of some value?

No. I just like to refer to rational numbers because it confuses people slightly more than refering to real numbers does. (See scottishinnz's above post for confirmation of this phenomenon.)

You should read Kelly's post if you want to learn about the analytical connection between a mathematical triviality and time before the Big Bang.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No. I just like to refer to rational numbers because it confuses people slightly more than refering to real numbers does. (See scottishinnz's above post for confirmation of this phenomenon.)

You should read Kelly's post if you want to learn about the analytical connection between a mathematically trviality and time before the Big Bang.

Doc, I was visiting in the nursing home today and was sittin there listening to some ole confused lady who didn't make any sense. I decided to look at TV while she rambled on. She likes TV preachers and it was at least like porn in the sense that you are repulsed by it and drawn to it at the same time. Anyway, this preacher said "THe Book of Revelations is a highly complex book of mathematics." Would you care to comment on this statement?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
No. I just like to refer to rational numbers because it confuses people slightly more than refering to real numbers does. (See scottishinnz's above post for confirmation of this phenomenon.)

You should read Kelly's post if you want to learn about the analytical connection between a mathematical triviality and time before the Big Bang.

D'oh! Yep, I should have looked it up first. That's the problem with assumptions, I guess.

But you see my point, no?

Once you quantify infinity to divide it, it ain't infinite any more.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Doc, I was visiting in the nursing home today and was sittin there listening to some ole confused lady who didn't make any sense. I decided to look at TV while she rambled on. She likes TV preachers and it was at least like porn in the sense that you are repulsed by it and drawn to it at the same time. Anyway, this preacher said "THe Book of Revelations is a highly complex book of mathematics." Would you care to comment on this statement?

I would say the preacher is very confused.

Any book written in a natural language will have relatively low entropy, and thus low complexity. What this means in practical terms is that if some translation of Revelation contains, say 1 million letters, all of that information could be encoded and compressed into something like 700,000 letters.

A more complex set of data, like a transcription of somebody speaking in tongues for an hour, would be more complex, as it would be more random and less compressible.

This holds true regardless of the subject matter, so even if the preacher is correct that Revelation actually encodes information about mathematics, which seems very unlikely, it is still not highly complex.