Some clarifications. -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 08:58:57pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Some clarifications.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02/27/04 1:54pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Looking Back..." on 02/22/04 9:44pm

>Looking back on this thread, I realize I should have
>never have pursued this topic this far. (with Wade
>anyway) In fact, this thread makes me feel sorta
>schizophrenic or psychotic. (or maybe it's just Wade
>that makes me feel that way) Anyway, I'd like some
>other impressions on this particular thread. Does
>anyone (with the exception of Wade) see Wade's
>proposed numbering scheme as necessary?

The purpose of the numbering scheme is really just to establish the veracity of certain premises. If Shandy has been writing from eternity past, there are only two possible options: either Shandy finishes at some point or he is infinitely far behind. (Do you dispute this?) The numbering scheme and some math were necessary to establish that this dilemma is indeed correct by examining the question "What day did Shandy write about last year?" The premise is thus proved correct.

After that, there isn't much use for the numbers.

>To me, it just seems intentionally defined and imposed
>to bring about a contradiction. It need not be that
>way as I demonstrated earlier in this thread. (e.g.
>starting at zero)

The dilemma does necessarily result from Shandy writing from eternity past. I don't think you've demonstrated otherwise at all. If you think you have done so, what day did Shandy write about last year?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Answer	Damoclese	02/27/04 3:28pm
Infinity began? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/27/04 10:45pm Infinity squared -- Damoclese, 02/28/04 7:19am oops -- Damoclese, 02/28/04 7:59am Splitting unnecessary hairs. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/ 5/04 11:59am Giggle -- Damoclese, 03/ 5/04 3:34pm My point exactly -- Ben, 03/ 2/04 7:34am And what point would that be? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/ 5/04 12:03pm