talkmagic.co.uk

That reminds me of a section in Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy where it is argued:

It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

INFINITY/INFINITY=ONE????????????????

aaaarrrgghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as for i
it is actually a number, or a quantative value if you will, whereas infinity and zero are not as they don't represent an actual value at all.

but what do i know, ey? i think Newton was an idiot. seven colours in the spectrum? choff, what a load of rubbish!!

i like how the "paradox" thread has become about maths

greedoniz wrote:Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.

This is the part of the logic that's wrong. It is possible, even if some planets are uninhabited, for there to be an infinite number inhabited planets. Whether the Universe really is infinite is another matter.

Charles Calthrop wrote:

greedoniz wrote:Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.

This is the part of the logic that's wrong. It is possible, even if some planets are uninhabited, for there to be an infinite number inhabited planets. Whether the Universe really is infinite is another matter.

There are only 2 things that are inifinite:
the universe and human stupidity
and I'm not sure about the universe

now if only i could remember who said that

greedoniz wrote:Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds

The arguement also totally falls apart here

1+1=window

Lawrence wrote:as for I
it is actually a number, or a quantative value if you will,

I won't. What is it then? If it has a 'quantative value' you should be able to say what it is. You can't because it's not. In maths speak 'i' has no real solution. It's no more a real number than infinity is. This is unimportant.

Zero is indeed a real number and lies in the set of integers.

Lawrence wrote:The arguement also totally falls apart here

Now, you're just winding me up.

Charles Calthrop wrote:

Lawrence wrote:The arguement also totally falls apart here

Now, you're just winding me up.

ok, that time i was!

i = the square root of minus one. therefor it has a value.
there is the arguement that 0 does have a value but not a quantative one, as it represents the lack of a value, rather than being a counting number. you can't count zero things, where would you start!?
i could argue this kind of thing all day, and i could easiyl argue against everything i've claimed already so i'll just stop here shall i?

Lawrence wrote:
I = the square root of minus one. therefor it has a value.

Really? Ask your caculator what is is then.

there is the arguement that 0 does have a value but not a quantative one, as it represents the lack of a value, rather than being a counting number. you can't count zero things, where would you start!?

I'd start here: I have zero Ferraris. That's not the lack of a value. Zero is an integer value, just the same as 1 or -1.

I could argue this kind of thing all day, and I could easiyl argue against everything I've claimed already so I'll just stop here shall I?

Please don't. I love an argument, me. As if you can't tell.

Charles Calthrop wrote:

Lawrence wrote:
I = the square root of minus one. therefor it has a value.

Really? Ask your caculator what is is then.

My calculator, not that i have one (who needs one when you're doing a maths degree?), isn't that clever and can only think in "real" numbers. in the same way that your average human brain can only work in 3 dimensions.

(now i wait for someone to claim that Time is a dimension so i can argue that that's a load of rubbish too, it does not exist at right angles to everything else i could also argue how time/space are actually linear and very relative, so much so that the earth is actually travelling in a straigh line but due to the gravitational distortions on space it appears to travel in a circle(ish), see, newton was a muppet)
The paradox thread has just become "random mathematical arguements" thread

Charles Calthrop wrote:

there is the arguement that 0 does have a value but not a quantative one, as it represents the lack of a value, rather than being a counting number. you can't count zero things, where would you start!?

I'd start here: I have zero Ferraris.

I'm stealing this arguement, i like it

Charles Calthrop wrote:

greedoniz wrote:Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds.

This is the part of the logic that's wrong. It is possible, even if some planets are uninhabited, for there to be an infinite number inhabited planets.

Bah 2nd time today that I was gonna correct someone and someone beat me to it .

Anyway - just to add my two-penneth:

If there's an infinite number of planets and not all of them are inhabited, let's say 1% for example are inhabited, then 1% of infinity is still infinity - which means there are an infinite number of inhabited planets and not, as previously stated, a finite number .

Lawrence wrote:(now I wait for someone to claim that Time is a dimension so I can argue that that's a load of rubbish too, it does not exist at right angles to everything else I could also argue how time/space are actually linear and very relative, so much so that the earth is actually travelling in a straigh line but due to the gravitational distortions on space it appears to travel in a circle(ish), see, newton was a muppet)
The paradox thread has just become "random mathematical arguements" thread

Who says all dimensions have to be spatial or at 90 degrees to one another? The fact that space-time is curved, as you point out, indicates the existence of spacial dimensions which we cannot directly detect. When you bend a straight piece of wire the part you bend moves into a different dimension; if you could only detect one dimension it would appear that the wire had got shorter.

Anyway, maths is just a cool tool with which to do physics, anything beyond that is like noticing that you can crack nuts with pliers; it's fun, but not their true purpose!

Forget all that, what I find amazing is that when God created man, spectacles hadn't been invented, but look where he put our ears!

Who says if zero is a number or integer?
Is it the laws of nature, or just what we've decided on this week?

I don't say it's a number, and I definitely say it's not an integer. Similar to how black is not a colour.

If you put [sqrt](-1) in my calculator, it says "i"

Infinity over infinity has a "tends" clause. Don't forget there are more than infinity!

Not a lot of the examples given above are paradoxes.

My favourite paradox is:

A (male, local) village barber shaves all the men who do not shave themself. Who shaves the barber?

This, of course, is just an application of "Does the set of all sets which don't contain themselves contain itself?"

Another example application is:

Is the man that says "all men are liars" lying?