Wortfish wrote:Newmark wrote:

...and the inverse of a number that is between 0 and 1 lies in what range? Compare this with your statement that "the inverse of all irrational numbers [...] lie within 0 and 1". And thank you for proving yourself wrong again!

The inverse of an irrational number....not the irrational number itself lies within 0 and 1. Stop twisting what I wrote.

In the post that I quoted, you gave an example of an irrational number that lies between 0 and 1, that is sqrt(2) -1. What is 1/(sqrt(2) -1)? What is -(sqrt(2) -1)? Just own up to that "the inverse of all irrational numbers [...] lie within 0 and 1" was wrong, and I'll quit bugging you about it. But if you want to keep painting yourself into a corner, go right ahead.

I'm terribly sorry, but I just can't find facepalm picture big enough. You don't really have any clue about what you are talking about, do you? That you are making things up about how you think mathematics work would be cute if I had any reason to assume that you where willing to learn from your errors. Instead, you blindly dismiss well-established mathematical facts as "illusions", which quite frankly is a downright pathetic argument in a mathematical discussion.

I am not making up anything. Amazingly, you fail to realise that taking the inverse of an increasingly large range of unbounded integers (scaled by a factor of 10) generates a (near) infinite contiunum of real numbers between 0 and 0.5. That is why it is an illusion to suppose that there is an infinity of real numbers bounded between any two integers.

What I don't fail to realize is that what you describe only describes rational numbers. Not any irrational numbers, neither algebraic nor transcendental. Mathematically speaking, the rationals are not an continuum. The rationals are countably infinite (just as the integers), a continuum (such as the reals) is uncountably infinite. Mathematical proofs of these fact do exist. I gave you a constructive proof below about how you can construct reals that can't be rationals below. As I've said, you are not contributing anything new that mathematicians haven't already thought of. Read up on the field, or embarrass yourself further; your choice.

For the record, Cantor proved that the reals were uncountably infinite in the late 19th century. Your "objections" only represents an incredibly naive version of set theory, and such issues are address if you actually take the time to properly learn anything about the subject.

Not all real numbers lie between 0 and 1.

...and you think this addresses what, exactly? Cantor certainly didn't claim that; if I've mistakenly made that claim anywhere, I immediately concede that I was wrong. But please do continue: how do you think that this fact invalidates Cantor's proof?

And I notice that you dodge a particular one of my questions: now that you've dismissed (among other things) set theory and calculus as "illusion" without "application to reality", what do you think of any technology that is in any way based on them?

I never said set theory has no applications. I said it has no application whatsoever to the problem of an infinite past.

Which makes make curious about what branch of mathematics you think can model time in any meaningful way. Care to elaborate? And that still leaves open the question as to what you want to replace set theory and calculus with, since you've dismissed central parts of both as "illusion"...

I note how you totally failed to address my objection to your forever-moving object. Care to address it?

Sure. Just copy/paste or link your favorite version of that argument (you've posted several), and I'll answer it. Greyman and Thomas has already pointed out most of your fallacies though, but I might be able to squeeze a few moer inconsistencies out of it.