New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I repeat my litmus test. If you don't understand inf+1=inf, you don't have the background to be discussing the concept of infinity as it pertains to the MM.

Here's part 2 for my litmus test: Once you understand part 1, tell me what inf-inf is. Hint: Although it would not be correct, "42" would display more understanding of the question than either zero or inf, which are also wrong answers.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I hope you are not directing these questions to me. I'm the one who first talked about Cantor and cardinality here. But you are and I'm wondering why? What's the purpose of all these? Why can't you just focuss on resolving the paradoxes? What's all these nonsense about litmus test? Do you think that anyone who goes to the extent of discussing the paradoxes of infinity lacks understanding or knowledge of these basic stuff?

Well, you just demonstrated you don't understand the concept of infinity. Zero and infinity are correct answers and also 42 and 4 and 2 and 778897090. There is no answer that is more correct than another so the operation is undefined. Obviously, by stating that an answer of 0 or inf is not correct you have exposed youself for being severely ignorant about the subject while accusing others of the same.

You are ignorant of the fact that inf-inf = 0 or inf are correct answers from an infinite set of possible correct answers. As a matter of fact, the answer:

inf-inf=inf

is one of the well known paradoxes of infinity, which obviously you did not know and now everything becomes clear why you do not understand what we're talking about here.

It's always the same story. When you hear someone accussing others of ignorance, SOONER OR LATER HE IS EXPOSED FOR BEING BOTH IGNORANT AND ARROGANT.

TVF, you got a long way to go. As someone note a few posts ago, there is always the option of continuing education at night time at a college near you.

It's pathetic after all these to realize that we were talking with someone who does not understand the subject. What a waste!

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[123]
... so I don't see how 42 is a better guess than 0 or infinity. No, at least 0 or infinity can be arrived through logical arguments.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

"... a better guess ..."? You can't possibly be serious?

DUDE!!! Life, the universe and everything. (???) You didn't even catch the quotes, did you?

Oh well, I suppose you really had to be there. Never mind.

Regards,
LB

To All:

When somebody claims "The Universe has always existed and therefore was never created" and claims "Mathematics lacks intelligence" and then attempts to insult others by claiming "Infinite mathematics is the only reality", it seems like a hopelessly lost person is at the helm.

I have nothing further to offer here.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: I'll do the polite thing on this MSB since I am a guest and skip the unqualified reference to "Ignorance".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I apologize for that injudicious choice of words. You had said "relativity in any form is still in doubt". I meant to simply complain that claims oblivious to the latest experimental evidence should not be made to appear to be statements of fact rather than opinion. My chosen words came out insulting, which was not my intent.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Clocks do not measure time.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Clocks attempt to measure time intervals. How well they succeed depends on how well they are built.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>They are a process and process are affected by forces of motion.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Actually, that is not true. Atomic clocks are not affected by force or acceleration even up to incredible levels such as 10^19 g, where g = force of gravity at Earth's surface. However, speed and gravitational potential do affect the rates of most clocks. Perhaps that is what you meant to say?

That is also what relativity predicts.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Your point is mute since Relavistic affects have other equal if not superior interpretations.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

And I have argued in print, even in mainstream journals, that SR is the wrong physical interpretation, and probably LR is the right one. But my objection was to your exaggerated claim that "relativity in any form is still in doubt". If you had just complained about Einstein's special relativity, we would have been in agreement.

But I apologize again for use of the word "ignorant". -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Well, tell me what Dr. Flandern meant by "although it wouldn't be correct"? If answering "42" is not a correct solution to the operation, then that demonstrates that the person is just as ignorant since he didn't know how to arrive at the correct solution to a particular incidence of <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>-<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I provided no information to make a "particular" solution possible. I was asking about a general answer.

Alert readers would have noticed that I already gave the correct answer many posts back: "indeterminate".

The significance of "42" was a bit of an in-joke that will be recognized by Douglas Adams fans ("Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"), which I gather Larry must be also.

I also suggested "42" was a better answer because it shows a recognition that any answer is possible in the absence of some other constraint, and zero and infinity have no claim to being more likely answers than anything else. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[123...]: Well, tell me what Dr. Flandern meant by "although it wouldn't be correct"? If answering "42" is not a correct solution to the operation, then that demonstrates that the person is just as ignorant since he didn't know how to arrive at the correct solution to a particular incidence of <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>-<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I provided no information to make a "particular" solution possible. I was asking about a general answer.

Alert readers would have noticed that I already gave the correct answer many posts back: "indeterminate".

The significance of "42" was a bit of an in-joke that will be recognized by Douglas Adams fans ("Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy"), which I gather Larry must be also.

I also suggested "42" was a better answer because it shows a recognition that any answer is possible in the absence of some other constraint, and zero and infinity have no claim to being more likely answers than anything else. -|Tom|-



<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Ok, now I get it. It sounded like a joke. Sounds like it could be a really good joke in the right context also. LOL.