Difference between revisions of "Talk:Infinity denial"
(moving discussion here from User talk:Liberaltears) |
AlChesapeake (talk | contribs) (thoughts on mathematical tools) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Better to add cites to a new entry rather than tag it with discouraging banner. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:33, July 30, 2021 (EDT) | Better to add cites to a new entry rather than tag it with discouraging banner. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:33, July 30, 2021 (EDT) | ||
:Andy, that article was written by you, which means it's your responsibility to add citations as needed for the assertions you made. That's one of the numerous examples of you not citing your statements as needed. My first edit to CP was undid because I didn't add a citation to it. There shouldn't be double standards (which is clearly a liberal trait) here. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Friday, 17:47, July 30, 2021 (EDT) | :Andy, that article was written by you, which means it's your responsibility to add citations as needed for the assertions you made. That's one of the numerous examples of you not citing your statements as needed. My first edit to CP was undid because I didn't add a citation to it. There shouldn't be double standards (which is clearly a liberal trait) here. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Friday, 17:47, July 30, 2021 (EDT) | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | In the inductive proof that pi contains pi, it starts with 1, then adds one, adds one, etc. It's always a real number plus a real number, and that always equals a real number, not infinity. If something is true for any real number, no matter how large, doesn't mean that it's true for infinity. I wonder if the problem is that mathematical tools, as they are created by humans, don't really capture infinity per se. I'm not convinced that any human mind can come close to understanding it, even if we acknowledge its existence.Mathematical tools are created by human beings. God's ability to be aware of every number - well, that's way beyond me, but it's intense to try to think about it. [[User:AlChesapeake]]''''' Tuesday, 20:24, September 28, 2021 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:26, September 29, 2021
Better to add cites to a new entry rather than tag it with discouraging banner. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:33, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
- Andy, that article was written by you, which means it's your responsibility to add citations as needed for the assertions you made. That's one of the numerous examples of you not citing your statements as needed. My first edit to CP was undid because I didn't add a citation to it. There shouldn't be double standards (which is clearly a liberal trait) here. —
LTMay D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well! Friday, 17:47, July 30, 2021 (EDT)
In the inductive proof that pi contains pi, it starts with 1, then adds one, adds one, etc. It's always a real number plus a real number, and that always equals a real number, not infinity. If something is true for any real number, no matter how large, doesn't mean that it's true for infinity. I wonder if the problem is that mathematical tools, as they are created by humans, don't really capture infinity per se. I'm not convinced that any human mind can come close to understanding it, even if we acknowledge its existence.Mathematical tools are created by human beings. God's ability to be aware of every number - well, that's way beyond me, but it's intense to try to think about it. User:AlChesapeake Tuesday, 20:24, September 28, 2021 (EDT)