Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/ 8/04 10:07am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "That's what I'm talking about" on 04/ 8/04 7:44am
>>I don't see how that would apply here. Throughout the
>>infinite past, in each year he writes about a
>>day. Hence, he writes about an infinite number of
>>days. There is no possible means for "convergence"
>>here.
>
>Sure there is. There's nothing that says as years run
>on they don't approach some particular finite number.
There is logic. Let f(x) = x for when the years add on.
lim [ x ] = No Limit
x > ∞
Which means it doesn't approach any finite number. 1 years, 2 years, 3, 4... goes on without limit. In an infinite past, there are an infinite number of years that have gone by. I don't see how you can think otherwise.
>This is why I see little point in explaining myself to
>you because when I introduce other possibilities you
>simply say "nah, I still like mine the best." Even
>though there is no reason to assume yours is any
>better.
Well, I did introduce math and logic. Do you wish to dispute my calculus?
>I guess it's of little surprise, since you spent
>inordinate amounts of time using symbolic logic on an
>argument that most of us here could immediately see
>wasn't necessarily applicable to reality.
And exactly how can you tell? Because it conflicts with your own presuppositions and is therefore wrong even though you can't explain why?
Again, the argument can only fail if one of the premises is false. So far, no one here has explained which premise is false and why.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
