A relative failure

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I would say the preacher is very confused.

Any book written in a natural language will have relatively low entropy, and thus low complexity. What this means in practical terms is that if some translation of Revelation contains, say 1 million letters, all of that information could be encoded and compressed into something like 700,000 letters.

A ...[text shortened]... ually encodes information about mathematics, which seems very unlikely, it is still not complex.

He weighs about 350 pounds and is always talking about fasting so I don't give him a whole lot of creedence. I think 350 is a number he should be focusing on.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I would say the preacher is very confused.

Any book written in a natural language will have relatively low entropy, and thus low complexity. What this means in practical terms is that if some translation of Revelation contains, say 1 million letters, all of that information could be encoded and compressed into something like 700,000 letters.

A ...[text shortened]... ncodes information about mathematics, which seems very unlikely, it is still not highly complex.

Would you say that a book on dimensional theory would be more complex than say a book on origami?

Originally posted by Starrman
Would you say that a book on dimensional theory would be more complex than say a book on origami?

I would guess that text about origami would be slightly but significantly less complex due to its smaller linguistic domain (i.e., "fold here," "fold there," "fold this," "fold that" ).

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I would guess that text about origami would be slightly but significantly less complex due to its smaller linguistic domain (i.e., "fold here," "fold there," "fold this," "fold that" ).

So is it not possible that the hidden secrets of god's magnificence coupled with the hallucinatory aspects of revelation might actually be akin to the complexities of string theory?

Originally posted by Starrman
So is it not possible that the hidden secrets of god's magnificence coupled with the hallucinatory aspects of revelation might actually be akin to the complexities of string theory?

I suppose, although I don't follow your argument, which is akin to that of the original poster with respect to clarity.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I suppose, although I don't follow your argument, which is akin to that of the original poster with respect to clarity.

Umm, that was kind of the point...

Originally posted by Starrman
you cannot halve something with no boundaries. Halving is necessarily dependant upon a distinct lack of infinity, so I don't think your post makes much sense.

I know you cannot half something that is infinite, you cannot take
a third of it, a hundredth of it and so on. To put a small drop of ink
on a sheet of paper whose size is infinite, and double the size of the
drop so it spreads does not change the relative size of the drop
when compared to the paper; however, the drop still gets doubled,
and that was my point. Doing the math with it comes to infinity
automatically builds in blinders to such things, since we cannot say
take half of something infinite, that however is not the same time as
saying our drop could not grow doubling every second forever. It
simply says that no matter how big the drop became compared to the
infinite paper, it will always be impossible to place a percentage on
the space the ink drop encompasses on the paper. The drop size
cannot be written out as a percentage of the paper with regard to the
space taken no matter how big it became unless it too was infinite in
size, yet it can change in size measurably. A point of view is what I
am pointing at, nothing more.

With regard to time and space, once there is an event, the words
before, during, and after do apply. Just as once we have matter,
all the words that describe it apply as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I know you cannot half something that is infinite, you cannot take
a third of it, a hundredth of it and so on. To put a small drop of ink
on a sheet of paper whose size is infinite, and double the size of the
drop so it spreads does not change the relative size of the drop
when compared to the paper; however, the drop still gets doubled,
and that was m ...[text shortened]... ter do apply. Just as once we have matter,
all the words that describe it apply as well.
Kelly

I am quite good at math, but I cant seem to figure out what you are saying.
I do think that it is wrong to claim that there is such a thing as a meaning full fraction in which one of the terms is finite and the other is infinite so your statement:
"does not change the relative size of the drop when compared to the paper;"
is not correct as it the relative size you are talking about is meaningless.

I also don't quite see how this relates to time before the big bang.
My personal belief is that there probably was no time before the big bang. However I am fairly sure that physics is not advanced enough yet to make that determination. I don't think it is a result of blinders though.

With regard to time and space, once there is an event, the words
before, during, and after do apply.
They only apply if time is infinite which is not a necessity.

Another critical thing which I suspect you have ignored in all this is the fact that time is relative and it is perfectly possible for a finite amount of time for one person to be an infinite amount for another.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I know you cannot half something that is infinite, you cannot take
a third of it, a hundredth of it and so on. To put a small drop of ink
on a sheet of paper whose size is infinite, and double the size of the
drop so it spreads does not change the relative size of the drop
when compared to the paper; however, the drop still gets doubled,
and that was m ...[text shortened]... ter do apply. Just as once we have matter,
all the words that describe it apply as well.
Kelly

"A point of view is what I
am pointing at, nothing more."

You really are a very confused middle aged man, aren't you?

Originally posted by KellyJay
it will always be impossible to place a percentage onthe space the ink drop encompasses on the paper. The drop size cannot be written out as a percentage of the paper with regard to the space taken no matter how big it became unless it too was infinite in

This is patently false, as all of measure theory bears out. A drop of ink on an infinite piece of paper is best modelled mathematically by a bounded set of positive measure. This tells us what percentage of the infinite paper is occupied by the drop of ink: if the ink has finite measure, it occupies 0% of the paper.

A simpler example is a finite set of integers. No matter how large, any finite set of integers can be said in a meaningful way to occupy 0% of the integers, in the same way that there is a meaningful sense in which the even numbers occupy 50% of the integers. Actually, in this same sense, there are infinite sets of integers, like the primes or the powers of 6, which occupy 0% of the integers.

This thread is all about misuse of well-defined and well-understood concepts with imprecise language to build conclusions about things way beyond what can be soundly concluded from the definitions of the concepts being used.

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
This thread is all about misuse of well-defined and well-understood concepts with imprecise language to build conclusions about things way beyond what can be soundly concluded from the definitions of the concepts being used.

Advertising ueber alles.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am quite good at math, but I cant seem to figure out what you are saying.
I do think that it is wrong to claim that there is such a thing as a meaning full fraction in which one of the terms is finite and the other is infinite so your statement:
"does not change the relative size of the drop when compared to the paper;"
is not correct as it the relat ly possible for a finite amount of time for one person to be an infinite amount for another.

Another critical thing which I suspect you have ignored in all this is the fact that time is relative and it is perfectly possible for a finite amount of time for one person to be an infinite amount for another.

I'm addressing the point of it being relative, and really only that
point! The ink dot no matter how big it gets relative to the sheet of
paper cannot be put into any percentage over the infinite, because
that is true, it cannot be looked at that way, and have it make sense.
The important part of this is it does not mean that the dot of ink isn’t
real, or that it cannot grow in size, only that ‘relative’ to the infinite it
cannot be plugged into a percentage of the infinite. The same thing I
believe it true of time, you cannot plug it into a percentage of the
infinite that does not mean that it wasn’t there before the Big Bang.
Kelly

Originally posted by ChronicLeaky
This is patently false, as all of measure theory bears out. A drop of ink on an infinite piece of paper is best modelled mathematically by a bounded set of positive measure. This tells us what percentage of the infinite paper is occupied by the drop of ink: if the ink has finite measure, it occupies 0% of the paper.

A simpler example is a finite se ...[text shortened]... things way beyond what can be soundly concluded from the definitions of the concepts being used.

So I put a drop on the paper you are telling me it covers 0% and if I
double the size of the drop forever it is still 0% no matter how big it
gets. Fine by me, that basically gets me to the point I was trying to
make, it appears like it takes up no space yet it is there and growing,
the math cannot be done does not mean it isn't there, only that you
cannot put a positive percentage in any degree to see it when it comes
to the finite over the infinite, which is a blinder built into the equation.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So I put a drop on the paper you are telling me it covers 0% and if I
double the size of the drop forever it is still 0% no matter how big it
gets. Fine by me, that basically gets me to the point I was trying to
make, it appears like it takes up no space yet it is there and growing,
the math cannot be done does not mean it isn't there, only that you
ca ...[text shortened]... n it comes
to the finite over the infinite, which is a blinder built into the equation.
Kelly

It's not a "blinder in the equation"; it's just a necessary consequence of the definition of a measureable set.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Consider the set Z' of positive and negative integers, the set Z+ of positive integers, and the set Z- of negative integers.

Z' has infinite cardinality, by a trivial application of the Principle of Mathematical Induction.

Z+ constitutes one half of Z', as for each element z in Z+, there exist exactly two corresponding elements in Z', namely z ual cardinality whose union is Z', and one will have halved something with no boundaries.

If you're speaking about cardinality, all of those sets has the same cardinality. And when we are talking about sets with an infinite amount of members cardinality is the only way we can count the number of elements of the different sets.
N,Z,Q all have the same cardinality.
And saying that Z+ constitutes one half of Z' really isnt' saying much at all.