[quote=redewenur]
Despite the red text, you and science are, once again, not in agreement. As I've told you, the so-called half-infinite ray is in fact infinite. Has it occurred to you that there's no such thing as half of infinity, regardless of the nomenclature of convenience used by geometricians?
Complete garbage you can write a mathematical proof it ... it is dead simple it was done in the 18th century.
Here let me do it in layman terms for you.
Your and Bill's infinity is zero to positive infinity ... so I give you one number -1 is that in your range .... answer NO.
You don't seem to see the meaning of Cantor's theorem, Orac. Cantor showed that there are different orders of infinity, i.e. that some infinite sets are larger than others. However, any infinite set, by definition, contains an infinity of elements
belonging to that set. The fact that it doesn't include elements that are not in that set does not mean that the set is less than infinite.
Therefore your infinity in not infinity of all numbers because I can give you a number outside the set.
Who said it was? No wonder you're confused.
Cantor showed in 1891 that by that statement alone you don't have an infinite set
No, that's not what he showed. Check the wiki page again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_theorem
Your infinity is the positive infinity, a half infinity or even the infinity of positive real numbers BUT IT IS NOT INFINITY OF ALL NUMBERS ... blabber all you like it simply isn't any child can see it isn't and you can prove it.
So you do see that the set of positive integers is an infinite set? good. Nobody has said that it's a set of all numbers, and it does indeed have lesser cardinality. But please cut out the "blabber", and other offensive remarks.
To claim so is beyond stupid and science, mathematics and I are in complete agreement no matter what your ridiculous claim.
There you go again, Orac. Are you incapable of coping with a thread without remarks such as "beyond stupid"?
If you have a start point you can't have an absolute infinity of anything geometric, mathematics or in physics because something exists outside the set UNLESS you truncate it.
No one is suggesting your "absolute infinity". We are discussing infinities of differing cardinality.
The only way you can make your stupid infinity conform to an absolute infinity is by truncating the set by another rule .... in your case by discarding or ruling out negative numbers.
"Stupid" again, Orac? You are insisting on an absolute infinity. I wonder why. Any infinite set will do, including the set of positive integers.
Infinite time must by definition run from minus infinity to positive infinity seconds if you put a start in then there exists a time which must be before the start and time is therefore not infinite because a time exists outside the set. If you want to have that definition you have a positive infinite time but that is really interesting.
To show you how interesting it gets lets use you definition of infinity (0 ... positive infinity) the interesting question it poses and I want you to think on is what physics would cause that ... you just established an arrow of time with absolutely no basis for doing it ... your basis as best we can make out is you don't like negative numbers.
Why are you discussing time? I wasn't. As stated, the positive integers are an example of an infinite set. But if you want to talk about the infinite set that includes all negative integers, that's fine. Or perhaps you'd like to talk about the infinite set of real numbers.
