Submitted by Resinate1 t3_zyzi9w in Showerthoughts
imregrettingthis t1_j28onbx wrote
Reply to comment by eegocentrik in There’s just as many numbers between 0 and 1 as there is from 0 to infinity. by Resinate1
Lol. Exactly!
Numbers are a construct and now you’re trying to define them in some real world way like pies. Thanks for helping me prove my point while trying to prove yours I guess.
If you keep wanting to disagree I obviously won’t mind since you’re actually just agreeing but feel free to look up this very established and agreed on mathematical concept that is again... agreed on by humans... the people that constructed it. As you so helpfully pointed out.
eegocentrik t1_j28p72x wrote
Pies are constructs.
imregrettingthis t1_j28pdg6 wrote
Pies are pies my friend. You were so close. Do you have a math teacher who can explain this? Or Google?
eegocentrik t1_j28pjvz wrote
Pies are constructed
imregrettingthis t1_j28psjo wrote
You do have me here.
eegocentrik t1_j28pp5a wrote
Please provide to me a source explaining that fraction are new individual numbers separate from their whole.
imregrettingthis t1_j28q9f7 wrote
A pie is 1 pie. A half a pie is a either .5 a pie or 1 half pie. It’s arbitrary. The only difference is representation. You nailed it at the beginning. Math is a construct. I’m only smart enough to understand this not explain it well perhaps since I didn’t look up a more educated way to reply.
eegocentrik t1_j28qmr4 wrote
.5 represents the PIECE.
I nailed this in every comment.
imregrettingthis t1_j28qxp2 wrote
To you. That’s arbitrary. Again. This shower thought isn’t a shower thought but an incredibly established mathematical concept.
If you want to be a smug ass and think you have nailed it go on. But according to all mathematicians on earth you are wrong and this shower thought is right.
If you want to disagree you might as well be a flat earther.
Again feel free to completely disregard me and look it up.
eegocentrik t1_j28slb5 wrote
To you.
Again you're arguing on shower thoughts, and if you want to be an incorrect smug ass while doing so that's your right.
Again feel free to provide your source as I have looked it up and I am still representing the concept accurately.
Please provide evidence for you claim
Strawman, equivocation fallacy.
imregrettingthis t1_j28t4vi wrote
not to me. to everyone on earth.
​
my source is actually just my basic high school level education. but if you need a different one.
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/number-of-numbers-infinite-weirdness-9387faa58368
here is a link. let me know if you want thousands more. or just google it.. or ask anyone with a brain.
eegocentrik t1_j28tjlz wrote
From youur source:
An infinite set (e.g. integers) and an infinite proper subset of the set (e.g. natural numbers) can have the same number of elements. In fact, all the following infinite sets have the same number of elements: natural numbers, whole numbers, integers, even numbers, odd numbers, prime numbers, etc."
Elements, not numbers.
There are the same number of elements between 0 and 1 and 0 and infinity, not NUMBERS.
imregrettingthis t1_j28u9gn wrote
again you could just google this. I am done, please feel free to leave this convo thinking you are right. you should even tell a bunch of people about how big an idiot I am... please also tell them about this concept and why I am a moron.
eegocentrik t1_j28urvo wrote
Your Google search didn't work.
Your evidence failed.
Thank you for finally agreeing with me.
Sometimes you just need to check it out for yourself and learn something new.
So don't think that you are a moron or an idiot. We all start from scratch.
imregrettingthis t1_j28vg2d wrote
sure, as I said please tell everyone about this concept and your point of view.
eegocentrik t1_j28vlur wrote
I appreciate your support in this cause.
M8dude t1_j2a5nap wrote
any element of a set of numbers is a number.
of course, how would you know, never having heard of set theory.
SaraF_Arts t1_j29eyat wrote
So, let's make an example here. I have a nice picture on my phone, but I want it to be a quater size smaller. What do I do? Multiply the pictures' dimensions for a "piece" of 0.5 each. What do I get at the end? A "piece" of the picture"? No, the SAME picture, but... Oh my god, SMALLER!
From your science perspective how do you explain that a "full" times a "piece" makes a smaller full and not a piece?
(Also, obv you study business, no brains to be found there)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments