God and the Immovable Rock

[Kuroko]

I want this one bumped, and please forgive me for doing so, because I would like to see whether others believe my idea's have a certain merrit.

It is kind of a piece of work if you will.

[Fonceai]

I think I see what you're saying, Kuroko.

1. Infinite time makes everything else finite.

On a long enough time line, the average population of the universe is 0. The Douglas Adams paradox... if the population of the universe is 0, then none of us exist.

2. Time could be both finite and infinite.

String glued to a table, as you say. We have no idea how long the string is because we cannot perceive its beginning or end. Thus, the string is infinite. That, and because there are infinite fractions within that string.

But it's finite because it is defined by its beginning and end in a greater space.

Ironically, the beginning of your post deals with Set Theory.

The set of integers between 0 and 2 is finite.

The set of fractional numbers (I forget the technical term) between 0 and 2 is infinite.

[Castle]

Quote by: Kuroko it is possible to measure the time it took for time to exist

But only with some sort of meta-time.

Quote by: Kuroko Before time existed the most illogical thing to believe is that the absence of time equates to the absence of actions

How is that illogical? Time is defined through change. No time, no change.

All of this meta-time stuff is certainly possible, but I see no reason why it should be either probable or neccessary.

Quote by: Fonceai On a long enough time line, the average population of the universe is 0. The Douglas Adams paradox... if the population of the universe is 0, then none of us exist.

0*infinity is undefined, not 0

Quote by: Fonceai The set of fractional numbers (I forget the technical term)

Rational numbers

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Castle 0*infinity is undefined, not 0

0 times anything is 0. That's basic math from grade school.

You also made the incorrect connection of "average" to multiplication.

No matter how you slice it to figure average...

Lifeforms per mile/planet/galaxy/etc...

Total lifeforms alive at any one time...

In an infinite universe, any number over infinity results in a quotient of approx. 0.

On an infinite timeline, any number of lifeforms over infinity results in a quotient of approx. 0.

For both, most certainly less than 1.

Quote by: Castle Rational numbers

That's it! Thanks.

[Castle]

Quote by: Fonceai 0 times anything is 0. That's basic math from grade school.

Basic math from grade school tends to leave a lot out:
Infinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Take a look at the very first 'undefined operation')

Quote by: Fonceai You also made the incorrect connection of "average" to multiplication.

Total population=Average population/planet times number of planets

[Nathan Struth]

I believe castle is right FOnceai. Infinity * 0 is undefined. Oh yes, I can't see that infinity + 1 is greater than infinity. It's in wiki that infinity + 1 = infinity. Also...I don't think cantor is right on the sets. the numbers of 0 to infinity counting by 0.5 is the same as counting by 1's. Nothing is greater than infinity. Please provide a proof.

[Castle]

Quote by: Nathan Struth the numbers of 0 to infinity counting by 0.5 is the same as counting by 1's.

True. But the number of real numbers between one and zero and greater than either of those, because the above can be placed into one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, and the set of reals from one to zero cannot be.

[Fonceai]

@Castle
@Nathan

That's what you get for using Wiki as a source.

If you read a bit farther, you'd see why it says 0 * INF is undefined.

The problem with your Wiki citation is as follows:

It presumes that x / INF = 0

This is incorrect. x / INF = ~0

Approximately 0. That means the number is infinitely small but is not zero.

The article you cited states that according to the transitivity of equality, 0 * INF = x, meaning that x could be any number, and therefore all numbers would equal each other.

This is incorrect.

Since x / INF = ~0, then ~0 * INF = x is still a correct equation.

Hence the source of the math in my original post regarding infinite quantities.

[Castle]

Quote by: Fonceai That's what you get for using Wiki as a source.

Wiki is the god of knowledge. It's wisdom is unquestionable (at least in this instance).

Quote by: Fonceai It presumes that x / INF = 0 This is incorrect.

You're joking. Fine, if you don't trust the encylopedias, I'll prove it, twice:
Proof the first: The limit of k/f(x), such that k is a real constant and f(x) goes to infinity as x goes to infinity, is zero.
Proof the second: .9999...(repeating) is 1-1/infinity, by definition. .999999...=1, because 9.99999... is ten times .999......, and 9 is 9 times .9999... repeating (subtracting one .999999.... from the previous result. Dividing the last result by 9 gives (1*).999999...=1. Now, then: 1-1/infinity=1. Therefore, 1/infinity=0.

[Fonceai]

Wrong.

.9 repeating is not 1. .9 repeating is .9 repeating.

AKA ~1

Before you start with 1/3 = .3 repeating, therefore 3/3 = .9 repeating, don't let yourself get caught in that trap.

I'm not playing games with decimals and fractions. That's how you get fudged math like .9 repeating = 1.

Wiki is not the God of knowledge, and your proof is incorrect.

This isn't debatable. You're just wrong.

Rarely am I this much of a dickhead, but in this case I'll make an exception.

[Castle]

Wow. You're scaring me. Alright, we'll do it more rigorously.
Let x=.99999....
9.999....=10x (multiply both sides by ten)
9=9x (subtract .9999.... from both sides)
1=x (divide both sides by 9)
By transitive property of equality, 1=.9999....

Find a flaw (which you won't) or give up. Don't say "nuh-uh" and expect it to go away.

Quote by: Fonceai Before you start with 1/3 = .3 repeating, therefore 3/3 = .9 repeating, don't let yourself get caught in that trap.

That also works, though it's a less rigorous proof.

Quote by: Fonceai I'm not playing games with decimals and fractions. That's how you get fudged math like .9 repeating = 1.

Tell you what. If you still won't believe me, and are just going to ignore the proof above, do five minutes of research on google, and perhaps sheer numbers , if not mathematics, will convince you.

[Fonceai]

You're wrong. Here's why, with your proof in bold.

Let x=.99999....

Got it. x=.9rep (repeating)

9.999....=10x (multiply both sides by ten)

Keeping continuity, 10x = 9.9rep
Also correct.

9=9x (subtract .9999.... from both sides)

Incorrect. Subtract .9rep from both sides and you get the following:

9.0rep1 = 9

The rest of your proof fails.

Here's what you need to do to be correct.

Stick a little ~ in front of your whole numbers.

(1/3) * 3 = 1
0.3rep * 3 != 1
0.3rep * 3 = ~1

Big difference.

Check out the word infinitesimal.

I understand the concept you are illustrating, but I don't fudge on math.

The "varying degrees of infinity" argument applies to this discussion, but your insistence on "close enough" is just annoying. It's laziness used to illustrate a concept that I learned in high school calculus:

The fraction 1/3 is, technically, not the same as 0.3rep

It's an approximation, nothing more.

[Jack]

I seem to have lost track. Does all this math disprove god, the rock, both or neither? :eek:

[Castle]

Quote by: Fonceai Incorrect. Subtract .9rep from both sides and you get the following: 9.0rep1 = 9

This is twofoldly inaccurate. Firstly:
There are an infinite number of nines after the decimal point before the multiplication by ten. There are an infinite number of nines after (infinity-1=infinity). 9.999.... is the same as 9+.999.... And I hope you agree that 9+.9999....-.9999 is 9.
Secondly:
The concept of 000....1 is absurd. There are an infinite number of zeroes in the string. You cannot append a "1" onto the end, because there is no end to append it on to .000...1 is identical to .000....

Quote by: Fonceai Check out the word infinitesimal.

Thanks, but it doesn't apply.

Quote by: Fonceai I understand the concept you are illustrating, but I don't fudge on math.

I don't suppose you did that 5 minutes of google research? Or is the entire world fudging on math and you're the only one who gets it?

Quote by: Fonceai The "varying degrees of infinity" argument applies to this discussion, but your insistence on "close enough" is just annoying.

It's not "close enough". .333... is exactly 1/3 (as a little bit of long division will quickly show you) .9999...repeating is exactly 1.

Quote by: Isherwood Does all this math disprove god, the rock, both or neither?

Actually, I believe we were originally discussing whether it follows that the population of the universe is zero from the (obvious) fact that that the average population per cubic meter (or whatever) is zero.

[pikatore]

For a rock to be completely impossible to move, it would have infinite mass, hence breakdown of physics as we know it, and the destruction of the universe.

god would then have to be a bit dull to pull something like that off, dont you think?

[Castle]

Quote by: Pikatore For a rock to be completely impossible to move, it would have infinite mass, hence breakdown of physics as we know it

Would an infinitely large rock not have infinite mass? Or, for that matter, an infinitely dense rock? I mean, sure, it'd destroy the universe, but God could just create a spare universe to perform the rock creating and moving.

[Nathan Struth]

interesting. I still don't think that 9.99 repeating = 10 or that 0.9999 repeating = 1. How could it? I still don't get the proof and I haven't taken calculus yet so I shouldn't really argue about this stuff. I think god could create the immovable rock, it's just that no one could possibly ask him to move it.

[Jack]

Oh dear. Do we now have to determine if the rock is sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic?
I never realized this riddle was so complex. :rolleyes:

[pikatore]

Quote by: Castle Would an infinitely large rock not have infinite mass? Or, for that matter, an infinitely dense rock? I mean, sure, it'd destroy the universe, but God could just create a spare universe to perform the rock creating and moving.

it doesnt matter how big god wants to make the rock. either way, it must be infinitly dense... which would actually mean it would collapse into a black hole...

...

so my conclusion, there would be no rock to move, since it would have collapsed in on itself, having infinite mass. if you want, you can try to push a black hole around, though i wouldnt recommend it :rolleyes:

is it just me, or is everyone beginning to feel a bit stupid debating this particular topic?

[Kuroko]

He got .999 recuring to equal one by deviding it into itself, I read it and laughed pretty much --_--.

yes it devides into itself one time but the ACTION does not and will not have the end value equal a whole.

My idea, was that before time, when actions and effects could occur at the same instance without a need of passage between them, a true form of instantanious there also existed the possibility for an infinite (a TRUE infinite) amount of events to have occured.

Every thing infinite that you can think of in this universe can end. thus they simply have the POSSIBILITY of infinity, go ahead, think of some thing which is truelly infinite. I honestly cannot think of one, not even time.