Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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 bound is the number one for all positive integers.
There cannot be infinite values between the bounds of 1 and 2. An infinite set of real numbers is impossible.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.
Your still confused.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 ...
Since every single positive integer in that set is always followed by another positive integer.
Your still confused.
The boundary will be zero of course, the equation will not work with a boundary value.Then give me a value for x which does not work in the equation.
I never said that they do not end.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.
The boundary will be zero of course, the equation will not work with a boundary value.
How about you describe what infinite means.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.
A limitation is a limit, a limit is a boundary in mathematics. A limit in an integral is also a boundary.Zero is only a limitation on the fraction, making it undefined;
Just supply a definition of infinite.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?
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.
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.
But the infinite is not defined and cannot be defined.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.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.
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.I have seen posts on these forums from young earth creationists that claimed that dinosaurs never existed.
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?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.
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...My view is clear. Certain rocks 'appear' to be 4 billion years old because they are 4 billion years old.
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.Maybe you believe in an old earth, and so old fossils aren't a problem.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?