• myslsl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    My dear friend, I am very big fan of the back-pedaling you’re doing here. I want to also point a couple things out to you.

    I’ve never argued that mathematics has a concept of finite or infinite numbers, or not. All that I have argued is that what the math world identifies as infinite, is not actually infinite when applied to the real world.

    This is blatantly untrue. You can certainly play the post-hoc “oh but I meant…” game and slowly change your argument to be something different, but what you said originally is not what you are suddenly now claiming here and your lack of logical precision or clarity in the claims you make is certainly not my fault or my problem. Consider taking a course in mathematics to firm up your logical argumentation skills?

    Let me remind you of a couple other claims you have made beyond what you are suddenly now pretending you claimed:

    1. “Infinity cannot be divided, if it can then it becomes multiple finite objects.”
    2. “If infinity has a size, then it is a finite object.”
    3. “There is no infinityA or infinityB there is just infinity itself.”
    4. “The statement ‘some infinities are bigger than other infinities’ is an illogical statement”.
    5. “The mere statement that there are multiple infinities, negates either objects identification as being infinite, and reduces both objects to finite objects (more word salad follows)…”

    Of course you have made a bunch of other claims in your weird psycho-babble word salad too. These are just some highlights.

    Lets consider this thing you just said here though: “what the math world identifies as infinite, is not actually infinite when applied to the real world”. You know, this sounds very familiar. It is almost like my very first comment to you was “It really depends on what you mean by infinity and division here.” Real wild stuff huh? Almost like it is important to be clear on the definitions and senses of the words we are using right? Like we should be clear on what exact definitions we mean yeah? Hmm… This sounds so familiar.

    As much as I’d love to make fun of you more while you rediscover arguments for/against mathematical platonism I’d rather move on.

    As an engineer I deal with recursive functions, code that can run indefinitely. But as an engineer I understand that the code that is running needs an initiation point, the point at which the code is initially executed, and I understand that the seemingly infinite nature of the code, is bound to the lifespan of the process that execute it, for example, until the process is abruptly stopped, or power is taken away from the computer the process is running on. A lifespan invalidates the seemingly infinite nature of the code, from a practical sense. When you start to understand this, and then expand your focus to larger objects like the universe itself, you start to understand the finite nature of the material world we live in.

    Loving the assumption here that I have no background in CS or software engineering.

    I understand that mathematicians deal with abstraction. I deal with them too as an engineer. The difference is that as an engineer I have to implement those abstractions within the real world. When you do this enough times you will start to understand the stark differences between the limited hypothetical worlds math is reasoned about, and the very dynamic world the real world, that those math solutions are applied to. The rules of hypothetical worlds are severely limited in comparison to the real world. This is why it’s very important for me to define the real world boundaries that these math problems wil be applied to.

    I don’t think claiming practical experience as an engineer as justification for misunderstanding and drawing faulty conclusions from basic mathematics is really the gotcha you think it is here. On the contrary, if you really do have a background in engineering, then you should know better and it is now my opinion that the people who have taught you mathematics and the basics of engineering have done you a serious disservice for not teaching you better. Misunderstanding mathematical models is textbook bad engineering. What you are doing here is using your engineering background to justify why it is okay for you to be a shitty engineer.

    I’m used to working with folks, like yourself, that have a clearly hard time transitioning from a hypothetical world to the real world.

    Who is having the trouble? I’m not the one stumbling over basic things that children learn in high school algebra like what the definition of a function is.

    This is why I have respond with civility, and have looked past your responses insulting tone.

    Oh yes, clearly my tone is insulting, but yours has never once been insulting. You pure beautiful angel you. If only the rest of us could be such a pure and sweet soul like you. I’ll be sure to only speak to you in the kindest and sweetest ways so that I don’t hurt your very precious and delicate feelings in the future.

    I understand it’s a fear response of the ego, and I don’t judge you for it. I understand that it’s difficult to fight with the protection mechanisms of the ego.

    I’m sorry kind and gentle prince, but I can’t help but point out that the projection here from you is very entertaining. I’m so very sorry for any hurt this may cause your poor delicate feelings.