there is no such thing as infinity
Craig Feinstein
that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
What's to say that eventually there is a number where it is impossible
to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
undoubtably be rich and famous.
I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find
this "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
counts and counts and counts and my theory is that it will eventually
stop at M. I am looking for collaborators in this experiment so that I
can use their computer time. The program in FORTRAN is simple:
00001 n=1
00002 1 n=n+1
00003 print(3,4)n
00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
00005 else go to 1
00006 end if
00007 end
It has currently reached about 2.0 x 10^18. Just as Einstein proved
that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
is no infinity and then write a book or two.
Dr. Ben Zona
matt grime
Jon Haugsand
> I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find
> this "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
> counts and counts and counts and my theory is that it will eventually
> stop at M.
What have you been drinking?
--
Jon Haugsand
Dept. of Informatics, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, mailto:jon...@ifi.uio.no
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~jonhaug/, Phone: +47 22 95 21 52
Gregory L. Hansen
Craig Feinstein <cafe...@msn.com> wrote:
>I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
>that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
Is there any evidence of 2 existing?
Just measure reciprocal unicorns, and there you go.
--
"Are those morons getting dumber or just louder?" -- Mayor Quimby
iNet Lending Group
Thank God I gave up drugs...
"Craig Feinstein" <cafe...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b671fc3e.04020...@posting.google.com...
Uncle Al
>
> I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing.
Idiot.
.
/ \
/ \
-------
/ \
/ \
-------------
With the apex of the triangle as starting point, sequentially draw a
straight line to every point in the line forming the base of the
triangle. Compare the number of points in the line forming the base
to the number of points in the intermediary line which each straight
line must also intersect but is inarguably shorter than the base (in
this case, only half as long).
Now you have an infinity in hand infinitely larger than the number of
integers, which is also infinite - but countable. If it makes you
feel any better, git, use a smaller triangle.
> What's to say that eventually there is a number where it is impossible
> to count higher than?
Nothing. Nothing at all. Try the trivial proof that there is no
largest prime number. Primes are a very small fraction of all
integers. Idiot.
> I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find
> this "magic number"
Idiot. IEEE 80-bit (long_double_precision) data type gives 64 bits in
the mantissa so:
2^64 = 1.84x10^19
is the biggest number in your box (unless you ran a Microsoft
compiler, which defaults double_long_precision source code to
long_precision executables).
2^80 = 1.21x10^24
BTW, idiot, (2^20996011)-1 is the 40th Mersenne prime. It has
6,320,430 deciml digits. Get back to us when you count that high.
Here are the digits for you to compare with your work,
<http://www.isthe.com/no.index/chongo/merdigit/long-m20996011/prime-c.html.gz>
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Tim Smith
> I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find this
> "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
Please reconsider--this is dangerous. Read "The Nine Billion Names of God"
by Arthur C. Clarke to see why.
--
--Tim Smith
Sam Wormley
>
> I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
Infinity
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html
Special Relativity
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
Physcal reality is observed -- Equations 7, 8 as v --> c
iNet Lending Group
"Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:nRRUb.13614$GO6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Damn, I was trying to remember that name when I originally replied to this
dribble.
"..and the stars were going out, one by one.."
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <b671fc3e.04020...@posting.google.com>,
>Craig Feinstein <cafe...@msn.com> wrote:
>>I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
>>that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
>
>Is there any evidence of 2 existing?
>
>Just measure reciprocal unicorns, and there you go.
:-)))))))))))))
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
hanson
news:4023EA43...@mchsi.com...
> Craig Feinstein wrote:
> > I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> > that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> > number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov
> > in his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48.
> > No one has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
>
> Infinity: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html
> Special Relativity
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
> Physcal reality is observed -- Equations 7, 8 as v --> c
>
Well, Sam, so "Physcal reality is observed" since 1905, ...wow!
Or did you mean "Fiscal reality is observed"? Well, that one
is always observed but rarely to never really taken seriously.
As for the third possibility that "Physical reality is observed",
and observable, for that one we should indeed be grateful,
and I think that Albert did not have anything to do with it.
You probably meant to say "Physical infinity is observed".....
....mmmm...dunno about this one, and if so, then only perhaps,
maybe, and including a lot of ahh, oehhh and hmm's.
IMO, nobody ever is going to measure/observe anything "infinite",
big or small. That is so by definition. But, by making (more or less)
logical deductions and conclusions from what we can observe, we
can reasonably assume and conjecture that realms/domains beyond
our measuring and our observational capabilities do indeed exist.
Actually, one can make a case that is was exactly for this reason
that the notion of "infinity" was created/invented.
Moreover, if we deny such existence then the question immediately
arises, "......but what's beyond the measured/observed limit".
Another neat thing about "infinity" is that it is not numerically fixed,
but instead goes with the flow.......and hence allows a smooth
transition from physics to meta physics and then into philosophy....
ahahahaha........ahahahahanson
Richard Henry
> to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
> that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
> undoubtably be rich and famous.
Did you go to school with James Harris?
Paul Juliano
I didn't know retarded people posted to newsgroups. In fact, I didn't
know that retarded people could get phds. What mail-order diploma factory
did you get your degree from again?
Bart Goddard
news:b671fc3e.04020...@posting.google.com:
Excellent. Absolutely flawless. A real gem. Thanks for making
my week. (I did have to check my Yiddish lexicon, though.)
Bart
Sam Wormley
Infinity is a concept.... there are an infinite number of point in
a line segment (mathematically)... as there are an infinite number
of points in space between two points (physically). I've got no problem
with that.
;-Peter Ramsey
> Please reconsider--this is dangerous. Read "The Nine Billion Names of
God"
> by Arthur C. Clarke to see why.
Too late!
http://www.allthenamesofgod.com
;-Peter
--
mythology with a twist
http://www.godchecker.com
Gods a go-go
;-Peter Ramsey
> that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
> is no infinity and then write a book or two.
Hey, you could be on to something! Just one question. What happens when you
multiply the highest number by 2?
;-Peter
--
Visit the laptop of the Gods
http://www.godchecker.com
don't myth it!
Uncle Al
>
> "Tim Smith" <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote in
>
> > Please reconsider--this is dangerous. Read "The Nine Billion Names of
> God"
> > by Arthur C. Clarke to see why.
>
> Too late!
>
> http://www.allthenamesofgod.com
They missed one. Now you are ALL in trouble - I submitted it.
ZZBunker
> I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
No it doesn't. Since measurement theory
from which Asimov's books come from can
easily be completly incorporated into
one aging out-of-date Cray Computer
and about two thousand lines of code.
>
> What's to say that eventually there is a number where it is impossible
> to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
> that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
> undoubtably be rich and famous.
Undoutably. But Newton also proved that
there are only four physical dimensions:
forward, reverse, up, and dumb.
It made him famous, but calling a British native
rich is like calling a Russian native (of which Asimov is one)
scientifically clued in.
> I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find
> this "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
> counts and counts and counts and my theory is that it will eventually
> stop at M. I am looking for collaborators in this experiment so that I
> can use their computer time. The program in FORTRAN is simple:
>
> 00001 n=1
> 00002 1 n=n+1
> 00003 print(3,4)n
> 00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
> 00005 else go to 1
> 00006 end if
> 00007 end
> It has currently reached about 2.0 x 10^18. Just as Einstein proved
> that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
> is no infinity and then write a book or two.
Your program didn't reach anything.
Since your line 00002 is a program counter,
not a reacher.
Or as the only thing FORTRAN is really noted for goes:
NOP in, NOP out.
> Dr. Ben Zona
But Einstein also proved that Drs are stupid, twice.
Franz Heymann
Twaddle
Franz
A N Niel
<matt...@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> What, it's April 1st already?
No, just a cross-post from sci.physics. This was about a valuable
as the other cross-posts from there...
Eur Ing Panagiotis Stefanides
>I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
>that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
>number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
>his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No
Craig ,
This sounds interesting.
Is there a corresponding number smaller than 1 that could indicate ZERO?
However, infinity and zero are technicalities.
Zero could also state the absence of something
(e.g not even one)and the impossibility of reaching it
in ones lifetime
(REFER TO SPIRALS(appart from their logarithms which is
something special) they have an assymptotic point which is
never rached ,and never reach a an end point-infinity
http://www.stefanides.gr/why_logatithm.htm )
Similarly this impossibility apllies to infinity.
If ,however there is a wall around our world this could
change the ideas of infinity and zero
>It has currently reached about 2.0 x 10^18. Just as Einstein proved
>that there is no aether
What about Gravitationl Fields,could they be considered as such?
The Classical Greek Phiolosophers used this term,
but the 4 elements an the 5 Platonic Bodies implied uncodified completely yet Mathematics of the world's creation (especially that of the Platonic Timaeus.
http://www.stefanides.gr/plato.htm
Regards,
Panagiotis Stefanides
http://www.stefanides.gr
, I am convinced that I will prove that there
>is no infinity and then write a book or two.
>
>Dr. Ben Zona
Tony
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing.
<snip hilarious stuff>
Wow! how did I miss this thread!
A hypothesis which disproves itself.
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing.
OK, How about infinite stupidity?
I was going to suggest Archie Poo, but your little
"program" is even better. All the scientific proof we need.
An undefined Magic variable M. And I thought magic
numbers in code were a Bad Thing.
Printed out 2 x 10^18 lines so far, has it?
Proof of infinity, for all the world to see.
Dr.(!!!) Ben Zona, huh. I must be missing the reference.
Cheers,
Tony.
Patrick Reany
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
>
You're right. There is no scientific evidence of an infinity of real
objects. However, that's science, not math. In math there is the Axiom
of Infinity, which assumes the existence of the set of natural
numbers. This axiom does not claim to have physical support, nor does
it need any, because it is NOT a claim about physicality.
This is not to say that infinity does not come up in science, because
without it we could not have calculus.
Patrick
Uncle Al
Ben zona = "son of a whore" in Yiddish.
M5B
00002 1 n=n+1
00003 print(3,4)n
00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
00005 else go to 1
00006 end if
00007 end
Your program can't possibly work.
It has to start with 1, and no one has ever observed a 1. So 1 probably doesn't
exist.
Also, what happens if 1 is bigger than the number M that you are looking for?
You will never find it. Perhaps you should consider trying n=n-1 somewhere in
your program.
And what if M is irrational, which seems likely? Or imaginary, which seems even
more likely.
Also, what if you find M and try to add 1 to it? What do you get?
Perhaps you could program it in Smalltalk?
Xevious
wrote:
>I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
>that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
>number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
>his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
>has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
You are trying to relate infinity to a quantity. Infinity is not a
quantity. Nor is it "the absence of quantity." If it could be so
related, then it would be a number that is not a number, and hence
would have no identity. But infinity IS NOT A NUMBER.
Your program cannot find the largest number because it derives each
number from the previous one. This is basic Set Theory. We say there
exists the number n = 0 (or 1), and that there exists the number n+1.
By this definition, we have 5.0 x 10^48. Thus we have (5.0 x 10^48)+1,
along with (5.0 x 10^48)^48^48^48^48^48 . . .
I think you're grappling with the fact that infinity is defined to be
that which has no bound, no limit. You can't quantify infinity,
because inherent in its definition is that fact that it is not a
number, and as such cannot be quantified.
Xevious
Craig Feinstein
> "Craig Feinstein" <cafe...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > It has currently reached about 2.0 x 10^18. Just as Einstein proved
> > that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
> > is no infinity and then write a book or two.
>
> Hey, you could be on to something! Just one question. What happens when you
> multiply the highest number by 2?
>
> ;-Peter
The "Great Computer in the sky" gives an overflow error, of course.
And to answer other people's questions about the foundations of
Calculus, dx=1/M, so in fact, we can do away with derivatives and
replace them with difference equations. lim_{n goes to
infinity}f(n)=f(M).
So there you have it. Good wholesome math with no paradoxes. I feel
sorry for you people as you believe in stuff that doesn't even exist.
No one has ever measured anything beyond Asimov's constant, A, that I
gave before! My hypothesis is that M=A*c^2.
Dr. Ben Zona
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Does you Mom know how you sign your posts?
Hisanobu Shinya
>I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
>that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
>number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
>his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
>has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
>
>to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
>that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
>undoubtably be rich and famous.
>
>this "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
>counts and counts and counts and my theory is that it will eventually
>stop at M. I am looking for collaborators in this experiment so that I
>can use their computer time. The program in FORTRAN is simple:
>
>00002 1 n=n+1
>00003 print(3,4)n
>00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
>00005 else go to 1
>00006 end if
>00007 end
>
>that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
>is no infinity and then write a book or two.
>
The capacity of any computer would be finite; even if we use a
special symbol to denote extremely monstrous numbers, any symbol
takes some bytes, and so impossible to express infinity with that
squirrel.
What if there exists
a squirrel with an infinite capacity? Well, actually we can not
prove that there does not exist M, as we are "assuming" that
infinity exists, or equivalently that there exists a squirrel
with an infinite capacity. Indeed, the intuitionists seem to be
the most successful school of mathematics.
Hisanobu Shinya
Craig Feinstein
> I didn't know retarded people posted to newsgroups. In fact, I didn't
> know that retarded people could get phds. What mail-order diploma factory
> did you get your degree from again?
I am not retarded and have an above average IQ, thank you. I got my
PhD from Univerisity of San Moritz, a non-acredited but well-respected
university in England. Just because it is non-acredited does not mean
that it is a diploma factory. It is better than the average state
university in the USA and its curriculum is much more flexible. In
fact, I wrote my thesis on the importance of life experience in
scientific thought.
As I said, infinity does not exist and no one has ever observed it. If
someone here could prove its existence then I would gladly concede,
but no one has. My FORTRAN program will eventually find M and I will
revolutionize mathematics. Everyone will discard the notion of
infinity from all math books and replace it with M=max N, the largest
number possible.
People think they contradicted me by giving numbers like 5.0 x 10^100
and saying that it contradicts my predicted (but not yet verified
value of M). But this misses the point - Has anyone ever counted to
this number? If you can prove to me that you have counted that high or
have at least programmed a computer to do such, then I will concede.
But no one has, so it is doubtful that this "number" 5.0 x 10^100
exists and therefore is doubtful that infinity exists.
Ben Zona, PhD
dave...@ukmisc.org.uk
> >number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> >his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48.
I don't understand what this means.
You don't measure numbers, you use numbers to measure things.
--
Looking for a 23
dave...@ukmisc.org.uk
> >
> >00001 n=1
> >00002 1 n=n+1
> >00003 print(3,4)n
> >00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
> >00005 else go to 1
> >00006 end if
> >00007 end
What bastard version of FORTRAN is this?
Last time I used unit 3, it was a card READER on an ICL1906A.
Where's your format definition for label 4?
Where's the STOP ?
Why are the sequence numbers in columns 1 to 5 instead of 72 to 80?
Why is GO TO spelt as two words?
Why is ENDIF spelt as two words?
Why doesn't the compiler bork when it spots the use of an undefined
variable in the IF?
Jokes are supposed to be internally consistent, you know.
Craig Feinstein
> Does you Mom know how you sign your posts?
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Mom is proud of her son the doctor.
Dr. Ben Zona
Brian Trosko
Dear Lord, it's easy to troll some of you people.
> fact, I wrote my thesis on the importance of life experience in
Clue #1: Blatant Simpsons reference.
> Ben Zona, PhD
Clue #2: Yiddish
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
It is not the "Dr." part that I had in mind.
Robin Chapman
>>
>> I didn't know retarded people posted to newsgroups. In fact, I didn't
>> know that retarded people could get phds. What mail-order diploma
>> factory did you get your degree from again?
>
> I am not retarded and have an above average IQ, thank you. I got my
> PhD from Univerisity of San Moritz, a non-acredited but well-respected
> university in England.
?
What part of England is San Moritz in?
--
Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"Needless to say, I had the last laugh."
Alan Partridge, _Bouncing Back_ (14 times)
Patrick Reany
> On 6 Feb 2004 08:51:09 -0800, cafe...@msn.com (Craig Feinstein)
> wrote:
>
> >I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> >that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> >number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> >his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> >has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
>
> You are trying to relate infinity to a quantity. Infinity is not a
> quantity. Nor is it "the absence of quantity." If it could be so
> related, then it would be a number that is not a number, and hence
> would have no identity. But infinity IS NOT A NUMBER.
You should take a look at Cantor's theory of sets. In it, Cantor does
treat infinities as numbers, cardinals and ordinals. Try a Google
search on it.
One of the brilliant things Cantor did was to define an infinite set
as a set whose elements can be put into 1-1 correspondence with a
proper subset of itself (obviously something one cannot do with a
finite set). For instance, you can put the set of positive integers
into 1-1 correspondence with the set of positive even integers by the
correspondence
n -> 2n
It seems to go against common sense to say that these two sets have
the same cardinalities. Then again, we don't have any common
experience working with infinities.
Patrick
Dave Seaman
>> >can use their computer time. The program in FORTRAN is simple:
>> >
>> >00001 n=1
>> >00002 1 n=n+1
>> >00003 print(3,4)n
>> >00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
>> >00005 else go to 1
>> >00006 end if
>> >00007 end
> What bastard version of FORTRAN is this?
> Last time I used unit 3, it was a card READER on an ICL1906A.
Lots of programs use unit 3. Some programs work with dozens of files and need
a unit number for each one. If unit 3 is not mentioned in an OPEN statement,
then it will probably be connected with a file named 'fort.3' or something
similar.
> Where's your format definition for label 4?
That is a problem, but there also is no definition of M.
> Where's the STOP ?
Fortran has not required a STOP statement for the past quarter of a
century.
> Why are the sequence numbers in columns 1 to 5 instead of 72 to 80?
That would be 73 to 80, but it's probably because those sequence numbers
are not actually part of the file and are not seen by the Fortran
compiler. Some text editors can be told to display line numbers on the
screen while editing.
> Why is GO TO spelt as two words?
> Why is ENDIF spelt as two words?
Why not? Both are perfectly legal, even if you are using modern
free-format Fortran in which blanks are significant.
> Why doesn't the compiler bork when it spots the use of an undefined
> variable in the IF?
Because it's not a Swedish chef?
Seems like that's the one really important point, since the other
problems can be easily fixed. He can't very well define M, since that's
the unknown value that the program is supposed to be looking for.
> Jokes are supposed to be internally consistent, you know.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
dave...@ukmisc.org.uk
> > Last time I used unit 3, it was a card READER on an ICL1906A.
>
> Lots of programs use unit 3. Some programs work with dozens of files and need
> a unit number for each one. If unit 3 is not mentioned in an OPEN statement,
> then it will probably be connected with a file named 'fort.3' or something
> similar.
When I learnt FORTRAN, we were advised that anything up to 9 was likely
to be reserved by the compiler for various h/w devices.
>
> > Where's your format definition for label 4?
>
> That is a problem, but there also is no definition of M.
>
> > Where's the STOP ?
>
> Fortran has not required a STOP statement for the past quarter of a
> century.
Well, it's a long time since I learnt it, it's true.
I always put one in, just in case.
>
> > Why are the sequence numbers in columns 1 to 5 instead of 72 to 80?
>
> That would be 73 to 80, but it's probably because those sequence numbers
oops! quite right.
Dave Seaman
> Dave Seaman wibbled:
>> > Last time I used unit 3, it was a card READER on an ICL1906A.
>>
>> Lots of programs use unit 3. Some programs work with dozens of files and need
>> a unit number for each one. If unit 3 is not mentioned in an OPEN statement,
>> then it will probably be connected with a file named 'fort.3' or something
>> similar.
> When I learnt FORTRAN, we were advised that anything up to 9 was likely
> to be reserved by the compiler for various h/w devices.
Not any more. There is a "standard input" (unit=*) and a "standard
output" (also unit=*). Card readers and card punches are gone, and
printing and plotting are done by sending files to the appropriate device
in a postprocessing step.
Even if unit 3 had a predefined association in some implementation (which
it doesn't in any modern Fortran that I am aware of), you can still use
an OPEN statement to connect unit 3 to a file.
dave...@ukmisc.org.uk
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 14:50:17 -0000, N.LENN @ WKX.KM.EU wrote:
> > Dave Seaman wibbled:
> >> > Last time I used unit 3, it was a card READER on an ICL1906A.
> >>
> >> Lots of programs use unit 3. Some programs work with dozens of files and need
> >> a unit number for each one. If unit 3 is not mentioned in an OPEN statement,
> >> then it will probably be connected with a file named 'fort.3' or something
> >> similar.
>
> > When I learnt FORTRAN, we were advised that anything up to 9 was likely
> > to be reserved by the compiler for various h/w devices.
>
> Not any more. There is a "standard input" (unit=*) and a "standard
> output" (also unit=*). Card readers and card punches are gone, and
> printing and plotting are done by sending files to the appropriate device
> in a postprocessing step.
* was "default input or output"
1 and 2 were input and output, which might, depending on whether it was
the ICL, CDC, or Minnesota compiler, have been the same as 5 and 6,
which were always the tty in and out. iirc 3 and 4 were card
reader/punch, and 7 and 8 were tape reader/punch. Might have been the
other way around. We didn't have a direct connection to the plotters
afair.
>
> Even if unit 3 had a predefined association in some implementation (which
> it doesn't in any modern Fortran that I am aware of), you can still use
> an OPEN statement to connect unit 3 to a file.
I knew that really, I was just being silly. I mean, the whole 'no such
thing as infinity' thing was a joke anyway. I hope.
--
Wanted: 24
Bart Goddard
@reader2.panix.com:
> Dear Lord, it's easy to troll some of you people.
Hush. We're enjoying this.
Craig Feinstein
M is the largest number. The computer will stop when it hits M. I
don't need to define it as the computer will know it when it finds it.
That's why I am using a computer for the calculations as they are much
more powerful than human beings.
Dr. Ben Zona
The Ghost In The Machine
<dave...@ukmisc.org.uk>
wrote
on Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:24:41 -0000
<MPG.1a8fe682...@News.individual.net>:
Looks more like a variant of BASIC to me...and probably not
a working one, as I've not seen a BASIC with an ELSE statement
on a separate line. The (3,4) could be a cursor reference, but
the only BASIC I remember doing that is a TRS-80, which I'm not
that familiar with personally, and I think it used an '@' anyway.
If it is FORTRAN, your objections for the most part are valid,
and there's the issue that statements must begin in Column 7.
BTW, older FORTRANS were happy with "GOTO", "GO TO", "G O T O", if
I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure they'd be happy with the IF statement
as structured; if it's straight FORTRAN it wouldn't know what THEN
is, and if it's WATFOR or equivalent the print() should be on a
different line.
The example is probably better written anyway. In this case
I'll use C, since it's what I generally use:
void doit(int m)
{
int n = 1;
do
{
n++;
} while(n < m);
printf("%d\n", m);
}
Should give one an idea of how one might structure this, erm, "problem".
The encapsulation of this thing in a working main() I'll leave to
the interested reader. For what all this is worth. :-)
(Am I missing the joke? :-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
William Rex Marshall
> Craig Feinstein wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I didn't know retarded people posted to newsgroups. In fact, I didn't
> >> know that retarded people could get phds. What mail-order diploma
> >> factory did you get your degree from again?
> >
> > I am not retarded and have an above average IQ, thank you. I got my
> > PhD from Univerisity of San Moritz, a non-acredited but well-respected
> > university in England.
>
> ?
>
> What part of England is San Moritz in?
The "University of San Moritz" does not exist. It is a bogus name used by an Internet diploma mill.
Dave Seaman
I think it's intended to be Fortran, which almost works if you assume the
numbers in columns 1-5 are an artifact of the text editor and are not
actually seen by the compiler.
> If it is FORTRAN, your objections for the most part are valid,
> and there's the issue that statements must begin in Column 7.
That's true if you are using fixed format, but it could be free format,
in which case it doesn't matter where the statements begin.
> BTW, older FORTRANS were happy with "GOTO", "GO TO", "G O T O", if
> I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure they'd be happy with the IF statement
> as structured; if it's straight FORTRAN it wouldn't know what THEN
> is, and if it's WATFOR or equivalent the print() should be on a
> different line.
In fixed-format Fortran, blanks are not significant, and therefore the
compiler sees no difference at all between "GOTO", "GO TO", and
"G O T O". In free-format source, the forms "GOTO" and "GO TO" are
explicitly allowed, and similarly with "ENDIF" or "END IF". However, the
Fortran IF-THEN-ELSE would look like
IF (n .eq. M) THEN
print (3,4) M
ELSE
GO TO 1
END IF
or perhaps the whole thing would be nested in a DO WHILE or a DO with
EXIT that eliminates the need for a GOTO.
It's legal to have a single-line IF statement, but such a statement would
have no THEN and no ELSE.
> (Am I missing the joke? :-) )
I think the joke is that the original program could be shortened to:
print *, huge(1)
end
which is a standard-conforming way to print the largest value of type
"default integer" that can be represented in a particular Fortran
implementation.
However, just because it's the largest "default integer" doesn't mean
it's the largest integer, or even that it's the largest integer that can
be represented in that implementation. Fortran implementations are
allowed to offer other integer types besides the default type, and there
is a standard function call, SELECTED_INT_KIND(n), which tells whether
there is an INTEGER kind that can represent integers in the range
[-10^n,10^n]. The function returns a positive value if a suitable kind
is available, and -1 if not.
Uncle Al
>
> >
> > I didn't know retarded people posted to newsgroups. In fact, I didn't
> > know that retarded people could get phds. What mail-order diploma factory
> > did you get your degree from again?
>
> I am not retarded and have an above average IQ, thank you. I got my
> PhD from Univerisity of San Moritz, a non-acredited but well-respected
Retarded and gullible.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Virgil
cafe...@msn.com (Craig Feinstein) wrote:
And does this zoned out doctor claim that all computers will stop at the
same M?
Enkidu
> Craig Feinstein wrote:
>
>>>I didn't know retarded people posted to newsgroups. In fact, I didn't
>>>know that retarded people could get phds. What mail-order diploma factory
>>>did you get your degree from again?
>>
>>I am not retarded and have an above average IQ, thank you. I got my
>>PhD from Univerisity of San Moritz, a non-acredited but well-respected
>
> [snip]
>
> Retarded and gullible.
-------
http://www.dailyfreepress.com/media/paper87/DFPArchive/frontpage/1015982.html
The diplomas, standard size at 101/2 by 151/2 inches, bestow all the
merits of a degree from the University of San Moritz, Puerto Rico, a
non-accredited school.
The company offered a Free Press reporter a University of San Moritz
transcript-- complete with credits transferred from BU-- for another
$200. University Degree Program asked for no proof that the reporter,
who initially called using an alias, took the BU classes or that the
classes even exist.
-------
No, he thinks everyone else is gullible.
--
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we
go to church we're just making him madder and madder"
--Homer Simpson
Bobby
> I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
>
> to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
> that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
> undoubtably be rich and famous.
>
> I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find
> this "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
> counts and counts and counts and my theory is that it will eventually
> stop at M. I am looking for collaborators in this experiment so that I
>
> 00001 n=1
> 00002 1 n=n+1
> 00003 print(3,4)n
> 00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
> 00005 else go to 1
> 00006 end if
> 00007 end
>
> that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
> is no infinity and then write a book or two.
>
> Dr. Ben Zona
....Dr of what???
Starblade Darksquall
Numbers don't exist outside of the human mind. They are abstractions
which give us useful information about the outside world, but the
number itself does not exist.
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Starblade Darksquall
> In sci.physics Craig Feinstein <cafe...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Lord, it's easy to troll some of you people.
>
> > fact, I wrote my thesis on the importance of life experience in
>
> Clue #1: Blatant Simpsons reference.
>
> > Ben Zona, PhD
>
> Clue #2: Yiddish
Um... how is it Yiddish?
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
Craig Feinstein
> treat infinities as numbers, cardinals and ordinals. Try a Google
> search on it.
Cantor was a rusha. He confused generations of mathematicians by
telling them there are lots of infinities. It is impossible to get a
BS in math without admitting that his theories are correct.
The diagonal argument was a sham because it presupposes the existence
of infinity without proving its existence. His "theorem" is proof that
infinity does not in fact exist, because if it did, then there would
be only one type, not aleph null, aleph one etc., because infinity by
definition is as far as one can go. He even defiled the Hebrew
alphabet by putting subscripts next to aleph when the gematria of
aleph is not infinity or even M but one.
His theory of infinities was in fact a precursor to the communist
revolution. Marx believed in thesis and antithesis, both infinite
quantities that cancel each other out, assuming that the premise of
dialectical materialism is true.
Had Cantor never been alive, there would be world peace and for sure
the number M would have been determined.
>
> One of the brilliant things Cantor did was to define an infinite set
> as a set whose elements can be put into 1-1 correspondence with a
> proper subset of itself (obviously something one cannot do with a
> finite set). For instance, you can put the set of positive integers
> into 1-1 correspondence with the set of positive even integers by the
> correspondence
>
> n -> 2n
>
> It seems to go against common sense to say that these two sets have
> the same cardinalities. Then again, we don't have any common
> experience working with infinities.
That is even more evidence for the ridiculousness of there being an
infinity. Any math that completely contradicts the senses is wrong
just as any scientific theory that contradicts observation is wrong.
You just cannot have an infinite set.
Dr. Ben Zona
Xevious
wrote:
>> It seems to go against common sense to say that these two sets have
>> the same cardinalities. Then again, we don't have any common
>> experience working with infinities.
>
>That is even more evidence for the ridiculousness of there being an
>infinity. Any math that completely contradicts the senses is wrong
>just as any scientific theory that contradicts observation is wrong.
>You just cannot have an infinite set.
Agreed that contradictory mathematics is fallacious. But ultimately
you come down to saying that you "just can't" have those damn infinite
sets. Where is your proof?
Answer: You can't prove it. It's false. Your Fortran program is an
exercise in futility because you want it to eventually REFUTE its own
definition! You want it to stop counting at some point, even though
the existence of any number n implies the existence of the number n+1.
THAT is a contradiction. That is why your program will never stop
counting.
Yes, we DO live in a FINITE universe. Otherwise we could have no
identity. But if what you're trying futilely to prove is true, then
there is no such thing as calculus :-)
Xevious
Gerry Myerson
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> cafe...@msn.com (Craig Feinstein) wrote in
> news:b671fc3e.04020...@posting.google.com:
> Excellent. Absolutely flawless. A real gem. Thanks for making
> my week. (I did have to check my Yiddish lexicon, though.)
Hebrew, I would have thought.
--
Gerry Myerson (ge...@maths.mq.edi.ai) (i -> u for email)
Tim Brauch
> Cantor was a rusha. He confused generations of mathematicians by
> telling them there are lots of infinities. It is impossible to get a
> BS in math without admitting that his theories are correct.
>
> The diagonal argument was a sham because it presupposes the existence
> of infinity without proving its existence. His "theorem" is proof that
> infinity does not in fact exist, because if it did, then there would
> be only one type, not aleph null, aleph one etc., because infinity by
> definition is as far as one can go. He even defiled the Hebrew
> alphabet by putting subscripts next to aleph when the gematria of
> aleph is not infinity or even M but one.
>
Okay, let's assume there is no infinity, which is your whole point, no?
And now you have this magic number M.
People have estimated that there are about 6x10^79 atoms in the entire
universe
(http://www.sunspot.noao.edu/sunspot/pr/answerbook/universe.html#q70).
I suppose this number 6x10^79 is your magic M. If you tried to write
down all the numbers 1 through 6x10^79, you would run out of space to
write them. (I won't even go into counting them, since even counting
one number every picosecond means this would take ~2x10^61 years)
Now, you might be wondering why I am requiring you to write all these
umbers down (and why I think your computer program might be cheating)
I can write 1 6x10^90, but that does not mean this number exists. It
might just be too big of a number, much larger than your M. So, unless
you have proof that all numbers up to your number M exists, proving M
exists is all for naught.
Okay, maybe that number is too big. Afterall, people guess the universe
is only 13.7 billion years old
(http://wiener.math.csi.cuny.edu/UsingR/Data/age.universe.html), or
roughly 4.3x10^42 yocto-seconds (10^-24). Maybe this should be M, since
the age all of existence is less than this number.
Personally, I prefer to think of 42 as infinity. Until you convince me
otherwise, I will just continue believing this way. 43? Doesn't even
exist.
- Tim
===
Timothy M. Brauch
Graduate Student
Department of Mathematics
Wake Forest University
ZZBunker
Mathematicians has always that though.
And since Plank's Constant has less to do
with math than idiots with names like
Feynmann, that's obviously why what you is say
you is true, but it's only true in
North Carolina and Calthech. So
it's also only true on Tuesdays.
ZZBunker
> Xevious <jo...@nsm.buffalo.edu> wrote in message news:<ffua2090otfkbs69s...@4ax.com>...
> > On 6 Feb 2004 08:51:09 -0800, cafe...@msn.com (Craig Feinstein)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> > >that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> > >number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> > >his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> > >has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
> >
> > You are trying to relate infinity to a quantity. Infinity is not a
> > quantity. Nor is it "the absence of quantity." If it could be so
> > related, then it would be a number that is not a number, and hence
> > would have no identity. But infinity IS NOT A NUMBER.
>
> You should take a look at Cantor's theory of sets. In it, Cantor does
> treat infinities as numbers, cardinals and ordinals. Try a Google
> search on it.
Most people already have. But Cantor never claimed
that infinity was a number. Only recursive
mathema-rejects have ever done that.
>
> One of the brilliant things Cantor did was to define an infinite set
> as a set whose elements can be put into 1-1 correspondence with a
> proper subset of itself (obviously something one cannot do with a
> finite set). For instance, you can put the set of positive integers
> into 1-1 correspondence with the set of positive even integers by the
> correspondence
>
> n -> 2n
But Cantor didn't do that. Ancient Greeks did that.
Patrick Reany
> > You should take a look at Cantor's theory of sets. In it, Cantor does
> > treat infinities as numbers, cardinals and ordinals. Try a Google
> > search on it.
>
> Cantor was a rusha. He confused generations of mathematicians by
> telling them there are lots of infinities.
What's so confusing about them?
> It is impossible to get a
> BS in math without admitting that his theories are correct.
>
> The diagonal argument was a sham because it presupposes the existence
> of infinity without proving its existence.
I already told you that one assumes the existence of an infinite set,
such as the set of all integers. Do you accept the set of all
integers? If one assumes the existence of that set, one does not need
to then prove it. Do you accept the continuum of the real line of
numbers?
> His "theorem" is proof that
> infinity does not in fact exist, because if it did, then there would
> be only one type, not aleph null, aleph one etc., because infinity by
> definition is as far as one can go.
I don't know whose definition of infinity you're using, but it sure
isn't a definition that mathematicians use. In math, infinity is about
the cardinalities and ordinalities of abstract sets, not about
distances in physical space.
> He even defiled the Hebrew
> alphabet by putting subscripts next to aleph when the gematria of
> aleph is not infinity or even M but one.
I'm not up on Hebrew mysticism.
>
> His theory of infinities was in fact a precursor to the communist
> revolution. Marx believed in thesis and antithesis, both infinite
> quantities that cancel each other out, assuming that the premise of
> dialectical materialism is true.
I thought Marx was on about economics and the fair dispersal of
resources in a society.
> Had Cantor never been alive, there would be world peace and for sure
> the number M would have been determined.
There have been and still are many threats to world peace, most of
these threats have nothing to do with Marxism.
Define this number M.
>
> >
> > One of the brilliant things Cantor did was to define an infinite set
> > as a set whose elements can be put into 1-1 correspondence with a
> > proper subset of itself (obviously something one cannot do with a
> > finite set). For instance, you can put the set of positive integers
> > into 1-1 correspondence with the set of positive even integers by the
> > correspondence
> >
> > n -> 2n
> >
> > It seems to go against common sense to say that these two sets have
> > the same cardinalities. Then again, we don't have any common
> > experience working with infinities.
>
> That is even more evidence for the ridiculousness of there being an
> infinity. Any math that completely contradicts the senses is wrong
> just as any scientific theory that contradicts observation is wrong.
> You just cannot have an infinite set.
>
> Dr. Ben Zona
Mathematics is founded on self consistency, not on "sensibility."
Science uses calculus, and calculus uses infinity.
Patrick
Craig Feinstein
Therefore, there is no such thing as infinity!
Otherwise we could have no
> identity.
??
But if what you're trying futilely to prove is true, then
> there is no such thing as calculus :-)
I believe in Calculus but not the way it is taught in school. It
should be taught where dx=1/M, the good old fashioned way with
infinitesimals:
If f(x)=x^2, f'(x)=((x+h)^2-x^2)/h=(2xh+h^2)/h=2x+h approximately
equals 2x,
where h=1/M. See! I just revolutionized modern thinking and
mathematics into conforming to common sense and human decency!
We live in a finite universe and there is no room for infinity here.
We must blot out infinity from our world as it is causing the
breakdown of morals and standards in our fragile society - in an
infinite universe, anything is possible!
Dr. Ben Zona
Dave Seaman
>> Yes, we DO live in a FINITE universe.
> Therefore, there is no such thing as infinity!
> Otherwise we could have no
>> identity.
> ??
> But if what you're trying futilely to prove is true, then
>> there is no such thing as calculus :-)
> I believe in Calculus but not the way it is taught in school. It
> should be taught where dx=1/M, the good old fashioned way with
> infinitesimals:
Are you claiming M is infinite?
If so, then you have contradicted yourself, since you also claim infinity does
not exist.
If M is not infinite, then 1/M is not an infinitesimal.
So which is it?
Craig Feinstein
That is a low blow. Many greater people than you and me have names
that mean different things in different languages. Senator Kerry, who
may even be president, has a name "Kerry" that means semen in Hebrew.
And Kofi Annan means "we are monkeys" in Aramaic (literally "monkeys,
we are"). Now, are you going to say that the U.N. is just a bunch of
monkeys when they were in fact he ones who said that Saddam Hussein
didn't have WMD's and GW Bush thought they did? Who was the real
monkey here? I am proud of my name. So if you are insulting me, you
should be consistent and insult these great people too.
Dr. Ben Zona
Craig Feinstein
> same M?
That is an excellent point. That is why I am looking for collaborators
who will repeat the experiment on different computers. My theory is
this:
Even if different computers were to output different answers for M, we
could always take the average of these numbers and calculate the
variance too. Then we would at least have a good statistical estimate
of the range of M.
Dr. Ben Zona
hanson
news:4024313C...@mchsi.com...
news:4023EA43...@mchsi.com...
> > > Craig Feinstein wrote:
> > > > I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> > > > that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> > > > number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov
> > > > in his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48.
> > > > No one has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
> > >
> > > Infinity: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html
> > > Special Relativity
> > > http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
> > > Physcal reality is observed -- Equations 7, 8 as v --> c
> > >
> > [hanson]
> > Well, Sam, so "Physcal reality is observed" since 1905, ...wow!
> > Or did you mean "Fiscal reality is observed"? Well, that one
> > is always observed but rarely to never really taken seriously.
> > As for the third possibility that "Physical reality is observed",
> > and observable, for that one we should indeed be grateful,
> > and I think that Albert did not have anything to do with it.
> > You probably meant to say "Physical infinity is observed".....
> > ....mmmm...dunno about this one, and if so, then only perhaps,
> > maybe, and including a lot of ahh, oehhh and hmm's.
> >
> > IMO, nobody ever is going to measure/observe anything "infinite",
> > big or small. That is so by definition. But, by making (more or less)
> > logical deductions and conclusions from what we can observe, we
> > can reasonably assume and conjecture that realms/domains beyond
> > our measuring and our observational capabilities do indeed exist.
> > Actually, one can make a case that is was exactly for this reason
> > that the notion of "infinity" was created/invented.
> > Moreover, if we deny such existence then the question immediately
> > arises, "......but what's beyond the measured/observed limit".
> >
==>(*I*)
> > Another neat thing about "infinity" is that it is not numerically fixed,
> > but instead goes with the flow.......and hence allows a smooth
> > transition from physics to meta physics and then into philosophy....
>
[Sam]
> Infinity is a concept.... there are an infinite number of point in
> a line segment (mathematically)... as there are an infinite number
> of points in space between two points (physically).
> I've got no problem with that.
>
[hanson]
Cool, Sam. Glad to hear that. So, then in order to have an infinite
number of your points, by necessity, they must be infinitely small.
See ==> (*I*), and continuing with it we could ask justifiably where
does the size/amount/extent become so small that it "safely" can be
neglected and thrown out. Practical, real world consideration begin to
be the Determinant of the neglect-limit. -- Right, Sam, we have no
problem with that. But, in the larger picture, outside, away from the
direct look into the "microscope", or with a higher resolution machine
the picture may be far, far different, .....for these thrown out of sight,
negletable and neglected vanishing tails or curled up dimensions may
turn out to be the existential cornerstones and foundations upon which
all our other constructs do rest...............metaphorically a bit like the
situation in pre Koch times when we didn't know, not recognized and
neglected existence of the then "infinitely" small cells, that they either
can do us in or, even more fundamentally, do make us up. ==> (*I*).
So, infinity as a concept appears to be a very many sided blade to cut
into the unknown. Yet, it is precisely these infinities, big and small,
that all our knowledge does arise from....and that's why I think they
are so bitchen ........infinities-unknowns-mysteries.........Yeah!.....
Let's go after these fuckers! .............ahahahha......ahahahahanson
Robin Chapman
Drat! I had heard San Moritz had excellent winter sports, and I was
hoping that I might be able to sample these without going abroad :-)
--
Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"Needless to say, I had the last laugh."
Alan Partridge, _Bouncing Back_ (14 times)
Robin Chapman
> cafe...@msn.com (Craig Feinstein) wrote in message
> news:<b671fc3e.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> His theory of infinities was in fact a precursor to the communist
>> revolution. Marx believed in thesis and antithesis, both infinite
>> quantities that cancel each other out, assuming that the premise of
>> dialectical materialism is true.
>
> I thought Marx was on about economics and the fair dispersal of
> resources in a society.
He was also keen on Hegelian dialectics.
--
Robin Chapman, www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html
"Lacan, Jacques, 79, 91-92; mistakes his penis for a square root, 88-9"
Francis Wheen, _How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World_
ZZBunker
You can put, put math goobers still seem to think that
Information "Theory" is science.
When it's really structuralist recursive gibberish
invented by the Chinese about 4000 years ago.
Or as we need to remind the French every day anymore:
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming,
so hurry and up get some kind of Austrian contract
with some non-Swiss scientists who actually
know something about rockets. Or else Paris
is going to start looking a lot like downtown Baghdad.
>
> Dr. Ben Zona
Enrique
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
Brace yourself!! Here I go....
(5.0 x 10^48) + 1
There, I just went past that number!!
>
> What's to say that eventually there is a number where it is impossible
> to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
> that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
> undoubtably be rich and famous.
>
> I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find
> this "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
> counts and counts and counts and my theory is that it will eventually
> stop at M. I am looking for collaborators in this experiment so that I
> can use their computer time. The program in FORTRAN is simple:
>
> 00001 n=1
> 00002 1 n=n+1
> 00003 print(3,4)n
> 00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
> 00005 else go to 1
> 00006 end if
> 00007 end
>
> It has currently reached about 2.0 x 10^18. Just as Einstein proved
> that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
> is no infinity and then write a book or two.
>
> Dr. Ben Zona
Hmmm... Once you're done running your program run it again for M + 1 ;-)
iNet Lending Group
make the world end.
"Enrique" <avil...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:ca9fa791.04020...@posting.google.com...
Virgil
> >
Another nut trying to impose his own limitations on everyone.
What you cannot do, zonk, does not limit the rest of humankind.
Patrick Reany
>
> Therefore, there is no such thing as infinity!
>
> Otherwise we could have no
> > identity.
>
> ??
>
> But if what you're trying futilely to prove is true, then
> > there is no such thing as calculus :-)
>
> I believe in Calculus but not the way it is taught in school. It
> should be taught where dx=1/M, the good old fashioned way with
> infinitesimals:
>
> If f(x)=x^2, f'(x)=((x+h)^2-x^2)/h=(2xh+h^2)/h=2x+h approximately
> equals 2x,
> where h=1/M. See! I just revolutionized modern thinking and
> mathematics into conforming to common sense and human decency!
In your cosmology is the number pi rational or irrational? Same
question goes for sqrt{2}.
>
> We live in a finite universe and there is no room for infinity here.
> We must blot out infinity from our world as it is causing the
> breakdown of morals and standards in our fragile society - in an
> infinite universe, anything is possible!
Explain this breakdown of morals due to the concept of infinity.
Patrick
Tim Brauch
I just ran it on my computer. It went all the way up to 2147483647 and
then went to to -2147483648 and started counting up again. I guess we've
found our first candidate for M.
Bart Goddard
> I just ran it on my computer. It went all the way up to 2147483647
> and then went to to -2147483648 and started counting up again. I
> guess we've found our first candidate for M.
Very inefficient. I modified the program to count in increments
of M/10, and it was done very quickly. It turns out that
M= 11(M/10), which is embarrassing mostly because if we'd have
thought of this sooner, we could have worked it out by hand.
Well, I'm glad that's finally settled. (Hmmm...I wonder what
journal I should send this off to....)
Bart
Dave Seaman
The two-line program that I posted previously, namely
print *, huge(1)
end
prints "2147483647" on my machine. "Huge" is a standard intrinsic
function.
Robin Chapman
>
> Dr. Ben Zona
Is your brother called Ari?
Craig Feinstein
> In your cosmology is the number pi rational or irrational? Same
> question goes for sqrt{2}.
That's a good question. Pi an sqrt(2) are rational, obviously, because
there is no such thing as irrational numbers. It's just an illusion
invented by the Evil Empire, Ancient Greece.
The way to calculate pi and sqrt(2) is just compute the decimals until
you get to the Mth decimal place and you won't be able to go any
further after that.
> Explain this breakdown of morals due to the concept of infinity.
Another good question. Morality is based on truth and common sense.
The concept of infinity is the antithesis to both.
Modern society is brainwashed into not only thinking that there is
infinity but that there are lots of different kinds of infinity. This
is the extent that common sense has been eliminated from society by
Cantor and his gang!
The Evil Empire, Ancient Greece, accepted to some extent, the concept
of infinity. And they were one of the most immoral societies around.
They destroyed common sense with their "philosophy" - and with its
destruction, morality was also destroyed.
Dr. Ben Zona
Bart Goddard
@mozo.cc.purdue.edu:
>> Very inefficient. I modified the program to count in increments
>> of M/10, and it was done very quickly. It turns out that
>> M= 11(M/10), which is embarrassing mostly because if we'd have
>> thought of this sooner, we could have worked it out by hand.
>
>
>> Well, I'm glad that's finally settled. (Hmmm...I wonder what
>> journal I should send this off to....)
>
> The two-line program that I posted previously, namely
>
> print *, huge(1)
> end
>
> prints "2147483647" on my machine. "Huge" is a standard intrinsic
> function.
Must be a glitch, since 11/10 * Huge isn't even an integer.
Bart
Lynn Kurtz
wrote:
>The way to calculate pi and sqrt(2) is just compute the decimals until
>you get to the Mth decimal place and you won't be able to go any
>further after that.
>
>Dr. Ben Zona
I just calculated sqrt(2) that way. Then I multiplied them back
together with my M&M simulator. The machine got very warm doing this
because it was having trouble with the 2M decimal places in the
answer. Two unfortunate things occurred:
1. The answer didn't come out 2.
2. It melted the chocolate, exposing the nut.
--Lynn
Dave Seaman
Sure it is. The statement
print *, 11/10 * huge(1)
prints exactly the same number as
print *, huge(1)
and therefore M = huge(1). I rest my case.
Bart Goddard
@mozo.cc.purdue.edu:
>> Must be a glitch, since 11/10 * Huge isn't even an integer.
>
> Sure it is. The statement
>
> print *, 11/10 * huge(1)
>
> prints exactly the same number as
>
> print *, huge(1)
>
> and therefore M = huge(1). I rest my case.
I'd like to continue this debate, but then I'd have to
admit that I don't have a huge(1), so I can't check your
calculations.
Dave Seaman
It's not necessary to have a huge(1). You only need to understand how
integer expressions are evaluated. In particular, 11/10 evaluates to the
integer 1.
raydpratt
> I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
>
> What's to say that eventually there is a number where it is impossible
> to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
> that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
> undoubtably be rich and famous.
Metaphysically, zero does not exist until it is observed, and,
conversely, 1 is implied by the observation. Thus, the process
leading to the existence of zero and 1 is not so much "counting" as it
is recognition. The very existence of zero and 1 implies, as well,
the existence of infinity as a substance of recognition, which is
essentially equal to 1. The ordinal numbers between 0 and this super
1 of infinity are mental phantasmagoras that prove useful as labels of
quantity when applied to physical things, but the existence of
infinity as a mathematical concept is inherent in the leap of
recognition of zero.
Very Respectfully,
Ray
Earle Jones
rayd...@hotmail.com (raydpratt) wrote:
*
Respectfully or not, you are an idiot.
Go to school. Learn before you teach.
earle
*
Starblade Darksquall
Have you ever seen yourself type? It seems to me you don't. I suggest
you do that for a change.
If you want help, I'll give you some: NON SEQUITUR. It's a phrase I
think you're in great need of attempting to understand and apply to
your own mangled attempt at regurgitating concepts in attempt to
string two clauses together to make what appears to yourself as a
rational argument.
> Very Respectfully,
> Ray
Very Disrespectfully,
(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)
soft-eng
> ";-Peter Ramsey" <checkda...@not-the-headers.com> wrote in message news:<EVWUb.6727780$be.11...@news.easynews.com>...
> > "Craig Feinstein" <cafe...@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > It has currently reached about 2.0 x 10^18. Just as Einstein proved
> > > that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
> > > is no infinity and then write a book or two.
> >
> > multiply the highest number by 2?
> >
> > ;-Peter
>
> The "Great Computer in the sky" gives an overflow error, of course.
Wrong.
The result depends upon the observer. Since
M is a fundamental part of the numeric-time continuum,
the observer's position and numerocity define
the result of the operation. Which is, of
course, less than or equal to M.
soft-eng
I get good results from using
M=ok(1)
Bennett Standeven
>
> > Cantor was a rusha. He confused generations of mathematicians by
> > telling them there are lots of infinities. It is impossible to get a
> > BS in math without admitting that his theories are correct.
> >
> > The diagonal argument was a sham because it presupposes the existence
> > of infinity without proving its existence. His "theorem" is proof that
> > infinity does not in fact exist, because if it did, then there would
> > be only one type, not aleph null, aleph one etc., because infinity by
> > definition is as far as one can go. He even defiled the Hebrew
> > alphabet by putting subscripts next to aleph when the gematria of
> > aleph is not infinity or even M but one.
> >
>
> And now you have this magic number M.
>
> People have estimated that there are about 6x10^79 atoms in the entire
> universe
> (http://www.sunspot.noao.edu/sunspot/pr/answerbook/universe.html#q70).
>
> I suppose this number 6x10^79 is your magic M. If you tried to write
> down all the numbers 1 through 6x10^79, you would run out of space to
> write them. (I won't even go into counting them, since even counting
> one number every picosecond means this would take ~2x10^61 years)
>
> Now, you might be wondering why I am requiring you to write all these
> umbers down (and why I think your computer program might be cheating)
>
> I can write 1 6x10^90, but that does not mean this number exists. It
> might just be too big of a number, much larger than your M. So, unless
> you have proof that all numbers up to your number M exists, proving M
> exists is all for naught.
>
> Okay, maybe that number is too big. Afterall, people guess the universe
> is only 13.7 billion years old
> (http://wiener.math.csi.cuny.edu/UsingR/Data/age.universe.html), or
> roughly 4.3x10^42 yocto-seconds (10^-24). Maybe this should be M, since
> the age all of existence is less than this number.
>
> Personally, I prefer to think of 42 as infinity. Until you convince me
> otherwise, I will just continue believing this way. 43? Doesn't even
> exist.
>
Close, but not quite. Gematria tells that M is 40...
DaveR
You think you can reach the largest number with a FORTAN program? How
crude! Obviously, you need to write this program in C++. Then you
might get somewhere. Although, you might have to wait for Intel to
come out with a 64 googleplex bit chip to run it on.
On 6 Feb 2004 08:51:09 -0800, cafe...@msn.com (Craig Feinstein)
wrote:
>I've thought really hard about this one and came to the conclusion
>that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
>number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
>his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
>has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
>
>What's to say that eventually there is a number where it is impossible
>to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
>that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
>undoubtably be rich and famous.
>
>I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find
>this "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
>counts and counts and counts and my theory is that it will eventually
>stop at M. I am looking for collaborators in this experiment so that I
>can use their computer time. The program in FORTRAN is simple:
>
>00001 n=1
>00002 1 n=n+1
>00003 print(3,4)n
>00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
>00005 else go to 1
>00006 end if
>00007 end
>
>It has currently reached about 2.0 x 10^18. Just as Einstein proved
>that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
>is no infinity and then write a book or two.
>
>Dr. Ben Zona
DaveR
wrote:
>";-Peter Ramsey" <checkda...@not-the-headers.com> wrote in message news:<EVWUb.6727780$be.11...@news.easynews.com>...
>> "Craig Feinstein" <cafe...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> > It has currently reached about 2.0 x 10^18. Just as Einstein proved
>> > that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
>> > is no infinity and then write a book or two.
>>
>> Hey, you could be on to something! Just one question. What happens when you
>> multiply the highest number by 2?
>>
>> ;-Peter
>
>The "Great Computer in the sky" gives an overflow error, of course.
>And to answer other people's questions about the foundations of
>Calculus, dx=1/M, so in fact, we can do away with derivatives and
>replace them with difference equations. lim_{n goes to
>infinity}f(n)=f(M).
>
>So there you have it. Good wholesome math with no paradoxes. I feel
>sorry for you people as you believe in stuff that doesn't even exist.
>No one has ever measured anything beyond Asimov's constant, A, that I
>gave before! My hypothesis is that M=A*c^2.
Hmmm. I think I get it. Difference equations where lim_{n goes to
infinity.... Hey! Wait a cotton pickin' minute. Infinity doesn't
exist! You said so yourself. Almost had me fooled there Dr. Ben.
>
>Dr. Ben Zona
puppe...@hotmail.com
[snip]
> The program in FORTRAN is simple:
>
> 00001 n=1
> 00002 1 n=n+1
> 00003 print(3,4)n
> 00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
> 00005 else go to 1
> 00006 end if
> 00007 end
>
You LIE! No output device in the world could keep up with the pace
you imply. If it output a million lines per second, your current
value would have taken about 60,000 years.
Socks
dave...@ukmisc.org.uk
>
> You think you can reach the largest number with a FORTAN program? How
> crude! Obviously, you need to write this program in C++.
Anything worth doing can be done in Perl, in a fraction of the memory
space something like C++ would use.
--
Next on list: 26
Darryl L. Pierce,,,
>> You think you can reach the largest number with a FORTAN program? How
>> crude! Obviously, you need to write this program in C++.
>
> Anything worth doing can be done in Perl, in a fraction of the memory
> space something like C++ would use.
And can be written in exponentially more obfuscated a manner than even C or
assembler... :)
--
Darryl L. Pierce <mcpi...@myrealbox.com>
Visit the Infobahn Offramp - <http://mypage.org/mcpierce>
"What do you care what other people think, Mr. Feynman?"
bri...@encompasserve.org
> Fortran says positive infinity = 2147483647 and negative infinity =
> -2147483648. Weird thing is 2*(positive infinity) = 0.
>
> Where should I publish my findings?
2*(positive infinity) = -2
2*(negative infinity) = 0
$ create test.for
integer *4 i, j
i = 2147483647
j = 2 * i
type *, j
i = 2147483648
j = 2 * i
type *, j
end
$ fort test
$ link test
$ r test
-2
0
Weird or not, that's two's complement without overflow detection for you.
John Briggs
Shrikantha S. Shastry
> that there is no scientific evidence of infinity existing. The highest
> number that anyone has ever measured to according to Isaac Asimov in
> his book "Science and Human Thought" is only about 5.0 x 10^48. No one
> has ever gotten past that number. Doesn't this sound weird?
>
> What's to say that eventually there is a number where it is impossible
> to count higher than? If someone were to find this number and prove
> that it is in fact the highest number, then that person would
> undoubtably be rich and famous.
>
> I am currently running a computer program that will eventually find
> this "magic number" (I hope and pray) that I call "M" for short. It
> counts and counts and counts and my theory is that it will eventually
> stop at M. I am looking for collaborators in this experiment so that I
>
> 00001 n=1
> 00002 1 n=n+1
> 00003 print(3,4)n
> 00004 if(n.eq.M) then print(3,4)M
> 00005 else go to 1
> 00006 end if
> 00007 end
>
> that there is no aether, I am convinced that I will prove that there
> is no infinity and then write a book or two.
>
First of all infinity is not a number or any such thing. On the
contrary to the claim, infinity alone exists. As such, its appearance,
the universe is only as observed. And so, while infinity exists, the
observers' universe is simply observed.
Now, this observers' universe forms the foundation for the observer
entangled quantum theory and observer related relativity theory, the
modern theories of physics.
S S Shastry
Richard Herring
L. Pierce,,," <mcpi...@myrealbox.com> writes
>N.L...@WKX.KM.EU wrote:
>
>>> You think you can reach the largest number with a FORTAN program? How
>>> crude! Obviously, you need to write this program in C++.
>>
>> Anything worth doing can be done in Perl, in a fraction of the memory
>> space something like C++ would use.
>
>And can be written in exponentially more obfuscated a manner than even C or
>assembler... :)
Do you have something against APL?
--
Richard Herring
jmfb...@aol.com
He's seeing a burnt-in screen. Thus, he doesn't have to
do any TTY output in order to "see" a display of numbers.
I'm still trying to figure out how he adds bits ahead of the
accumulator. I'm also not questioning which compiler language
he's using. None of the above looks like my beloved FORTRAN.
Hint: FORTRAN is spelled correctly and implies which FORTRANs
I'm referencing.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
That's how your FORT compiler worked at handling numbers. You
really have to look under the hood to see if there's a mess.
I usually DDTed and stuffed a word with 36 1-bits (we had 36-bit
word size) and then fed it out of our OTS (object time system)
which is the downstream code that really does the I/O conversions
into human-human readable forms which has no relationship (other
than being in the same address space) with the arithmetic
machinations of the code.
jmfb...@aol.com
Darryl L. Pierce,,,
>>>> You think you can reach the largest number with a FORTAN program? How
>>>> crude! Obviously, you need to write this program in C++.
>>>
>>> Anything worth doing can be done in Perl, in a fraction of the memory
>>> space something like C++ would use.
>>
>>And can be written in exponentially more obfuscated a manner than even C
>>or assembler... :)
>
> Do you have something against APL?
Just a court ruling in my favor and some outstanding payments for emotional
damage.... ;)