Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

[46AND2]

One cannot have an infinite number of real numbers on a number line, that are between two positive integers on that same number line.

The two positive integers on that number line form the bounds of that set of real numbers.

There are infinite values for f(x)= 1+1/x (which are also real numbers) between the points 1 and 2 on a number line.

 

[klutedavid]

What is the largest prime number?

---

Suppose there was a largest prime number called P.

Then we could construct a number that was one larger than the product of all of the finite prime numbers.

This number would be 2*3*5*7*11*13*...*P + 1

This number is bigger than P, so it can't be prime (since P is the largest prime). Which means that it must be divisible by smaller primes. But by construction, the remainder when you divide this new number by any prime will be 1. This is a contradiction. Therefore there are not a finite number of primes. The number of primes is infinite.

The restriction on the number of primes is below an infinite number of primes. Because primes like all numbers are bounded in some way, an infinite set is unbounded.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The bound is the number one for all positive integers.

one?!?

I think you're misunderstanding what a bound is. A bound is like an upper limit. Like say... the lifespan of human beings is not unbounded. It is bounded by 3000 years. No human has ever lived that long. All human lifespans are smaller than the bound of 3000 years. If you were immortal, there would be no upper bound on your lifespan. If you're immortal, you don't die at 3000 years or 3 million or 3 googolplex years. Your life is unbounded.

If positive integers were bounded, you could state what its boundary is. There are no positive integers bigger than ...

 

[klutedavid]

There are infinite values for f(x)= 1+1/x (which are also real numbers) between the points 1 and 2 on a number line.

There cannot be infinite values between the bounds of 1 and 2. An infinite set of real numbers is impossible.

 

[46AND2]

There cannot be infinite values between the bounds of 1 and 2. An infinite set of real numbers is impossible.

Then give me a value for x (assuming x does not equal zero) which does not work in the equation.

 

[klutedavid]

one?!?

I think you're misunderstanding what a bound is. A bound is like an upper limit. Like say... the lifespan of human beings is not unbounded. It is bounded by 3000 years. No human has ever lived that long. All human lifespans are smaller than the bound of 3000 years. If you were immortal, there would be no upper bound on your lifespan. If you're immortal, you don't die at 3000 years or 3 million or 3 googolplex years. Your life is unbounded.

If positive integers were bounded, you could state what its boundary is. There are no positive integers bigger than ...

Your still confused.

Human life spans are bounded at the start and finish.

Integers are bounded by the first positive integer. Hence, all positive integers form a bounded set.

An infinite set is unbounded and not measurable, it is really an undefined term.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since every single positive integer in that set is always followed by another positive integer.

Your still confused.

Nope. In your previous statement, you have admitted that there is no end to the positive integers. The set is infinite.

Whether you realize your misconsception or not, you have confessed your error.

 

[klutedavid]

Then give me a value for x which does not work in the equation.

The boundary will be zero of course, the equation will not work with a boundary value.

 

[klutedavid]

Nope. In your previous statement, you have admitted that there is no end to the positive integers. The set is infinite.

Whether you realize your misconsception or not, you have confessed your error.

I never said that they do not end.

This is what I said.

Since every single positive integer in that set is always followed by another positive integer.

That is never an infinite conga line of positive integers.

An infinite numerical value does not exist.

The concept of the infinite is beyond the domain of mathematics.

 

[46AND2]

The boundary will be zero of course, the equation will not work with a boundary value.

Zero is only a limitation on the fraction, making it undefined; in other words, not a real number. I said there are infinite real numbers between 1 and 2. So let me rephrase: what value of x, which results in a real number, does not fit the equation?

 

[klutedavid]

Nope. In your previous statement, you have admitted that there is no end to the positive integers. The set is infinite.

Whether you realize your misconsception or not, you have confessed your error.

How about you describe what infinite means.

 

[klutedavid]

Zero is only a limitation on the fraction, making it undefined;

A limitation is a limit, a limit is a boundary in mathematics. A limit in an integral is also a boundary.

I said there are infinite real numbers between 1 and 2. So let me rephrase: what value of x, which results in a real number, does not fit the equation?

Just supply a definition of infinite.

 

[46AND2]

A limitation is a limit, a limit is a boundary in mathematics. A limit in an integral is also a boundary.Just supply a definition of infinite.

Yes, it is a limit. However, it is not a limit for the quantity of real numbers between 1 and 2. Which is what I am looking for.

 

[46AND2]

The concept of the infinite is beyond the domain of mathematics.

The concept of the infinite is vital to mathematics.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, it is a limit. However, it is not a limit for the quantity of real numbers between 1 and 2. Which is what I am looking for.

Just supply a definition of infinite.

 

[klutedavid]

The concept of the infinite is vital to mathematics.

But the infinite is not defined and cannot be defined.

The infinite is beyond calculation and beyond the realm of mathematics, a mathematics based purely on axioms.

 

[klutedavid]

The concept of the infinite is vital to mathematics.

That's why they hijacked the concept and forced the infinite into the finite world of mathematics.

 

[46AND2]

That's why they hijacked the concept and forced the infinite into the finite world of mathematics.

LOL. So that's where this is going. Only god is infinite? Should have guessed.

 

[Ken Rank]

I have seen posts on these forums from young earth creationists that claimed that dinosaurs never existed.

Oh, well that's silly. When we have physical evidence that does not need to be interpreted, then there isn't a question. In that case Jack, when you're holding a femur that is over 4' long, it becomes difficult to say larger animals didn't exist. The only way is to turn God into something He said He wasn't, a liar.

 

[Ken Rank]

Earlier you wrote: "It isn't deceptive if God creates a man and, when 2 minutes old, the man looks to be 25."

So you claim it is not deceptive for something to be created with an 'appearance of age' as in the Omphalos/Last Thursday hypothesis.

I'm just trying to find out what that means for you.

It means, God created a man not a baby. So, if you looked at Adam you would have thought, "20-30 years old" when in reality he might have been seconds old. Not deception, it is, again, simply that God didn't create a baby He created a man and with that would naturally come the appearance of age to somebody who was trying to catch God in a lie, I guess?

My view is clear. Certain rocks 'appear' to be 4 billion years old because they are 4 billion years old.

Nobody knows that with 100% certainty. Let's just go out on the limb for the sake of science and accept that PERHAPS there was a Creator. I know this will be hard because the scientific world, in general, won't even allow for this discussion which is sad... it indicates they are not always open to potential truth but rather, only what their atheistic bias allows them to see. But I digress...

Let's say there is a Creator and when He created Adam, there in a second of time stood a man not a baby. He would have looked 25 years old (or whatever), but in reality he was seconds old. Same with the mountains. Same with a breathable atmosphere. Your methods of determination suggest that took millions of years. But if God made a man then God also made an atmosphere for him to survive in so what you suggest took 100 million to a billion years was created when the man was created and both then, carry with them an appearance of age when in reality there is none. Same with the stars... if God placed them in the heavens then those great distances away from what you think is a big bang (I do, too, by the way) happened in a second and not over 15 billion years. Their distances tell you, "a great deal of time" when in reality, again, IF there is a God that created, it might not be a very long period of time at all.

Maybe you believe in an old earth, and so old fossils aren't a problem.

Fossils aren't a problem for me and I don't believe in an old earth. First of all, our classification system is more elaborate then the classification system found in Scripture. Where we break down species to sub-categories, the bible does not. A cat is a cat, period. So when 2 pairs of the unclean and 7 pairs of the clean animals were brought aboard, they could have been younger (thus smaller) and didn't have to include all the subspecies. The amount of animals that come aboard are then a great deal lower in number then most trying to disprove the biblical account because they would naturally think according to modern scientific terms and would have included all subspecies.

The dinosaurs (only land dwelling) could have been brought aboard and the environment after the flood might not have been as conducive for their existence and some died off while others adapted and changed with their environments and some are still around today in the form of lizards and monitors and most others are simply gone, like many animals throughout time.

And no... just FYI... I don't believe we evolved from apes. Not only does that go against the narrative I happen to accept as true, but the fact that all in-between species between apes and man are gone. The apes are here and would be thriving is man wasn't encroaching further and further into their habitat and we are here... but not even ONE of the in-between evolutionary steps is? Nor do we arguably even have a set of fossils to prove the point? I would suggest it takes far greater "faith" to believe the evolutionary "theory" then it does to accept that there is a God.