Refuting the counters to Zeno's paradox

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

LI, I'd appreciate it if you didn't feed any trolling. Thanks for your support, but he isn't going to shut up and he isn't going to take anything I say seriously. Just ignore him unless he says anything of substance.

When you say something that CAN be taken seriously I will. I'm not sure about the credentials of Xamonas, but I'm quite qualified to talk about mathematics, and so far, you have stated nothing of substance. 'Trolling'? The gall.

[Surendra Darathy]

The whole point of the math is to try and prove that the series can be summed - not just to assume that it has a sum and then use that assumption to prove the sum of that series.

There are instructions for how to do this!



James, your shipment of fail has arrived; next time, get the fuck out of the way, instead of just standing around:

[jamest]

I just want to elucidate, in case there's any confusion...

If the summing of series x is doubtful, then we simply cannot say that x = x. That is, x = x only applies to series of numbers with actual sums. Hence, the utilisation of x = x as the basis of proving x's sum, is an unwarranted move that nullifies any of the subsequent math.

I've also spotted something significant that XC said just prior to presenting the second mathematical proof:

1. The result of adding together the infinite parts as described by Zeno, be it an actual number or not, is identical to itself.

If no actual number is obtained from adding an infinite series together, then we have our answer - an infinite series cannot be summed!
How can the sum of x = 1, when previously it was already decided that x has no sum?! The conclusion is at-odds with its premise!!

So, if XC states that x = x, subsequent to proving that x = 1, then he has done so either by:

1) Assuming that x has a sum and utilising that assumption prior to proving what that sum is.

2) Providing a sum that is at-odds with his premise (that the series has no sum).

Either way, the math has to be null & void.

[The Dagda]

Before I proceed do you understand the basic rules of integration? If you don't there's little point in me explaining that t and xare related concepts but time halves not distance.

[jamest]

James, your shipment of fail has arrived:

The only failure here, thus far, has been on the part of those wishing to refute me without addressing a single jot of my reasoning. Do you think that such nonsense goes unnoticed? Not by me it doesn't. In fact, I've grown weary of J-team whitewash. The odour of it is not good at all.

[jamest]

Before I proceed do you understand the basic rules of integration? If you don't there's little point in me explaining that t and xare related concepts but time halves not distance.

I don't want you to proceed with that. I want you to address my post.

[Surendra Darathy]

If no actual number is obtained from adding an infinite series together, then we have our answer - an infinite series cannot be summed!

There are tests of whether a series converges or not. The geometric series XC used as an example can be shown to converge.

All you're doing in this thread is putting your ignorance on public display.

The only failure here, thus far, has been on the part of those wishing to refute me without addressing a single jot of my reasoning.

There isn't a single jot in your reasoning. All we've seen is your persistence in displaying your ignorance of mathematics that is taught to secondary students.

[the PC apeman]

If the summing of series x is doubtful, then we simply cannot say that x = x.

...which would imply that it is possible that x ≠ x. Is there a mathematics version of the principle of explosion? {A, ~A} thinking is a common hallmark of woo as it allows wooheads to conclude anything they wish.

[The Dagda]

Before I proceed do you understand the basic rules of integration? If you don't there's little point in me explaining that t and xare related concepts but time halves not distance.

I don't want you to proceed with that. I want you to address my post.

I have but if you don't understand integration and how that relates to your post I'm wasting my time as you don't have the mathematical education to understand the proofs behind it. Incidentally Aristotle was the first to solve the paradox and render it useless, it appears 2000 years later with the resources at your command you cant. Shame really.

Geometric series's like this can be rigorously proved by using integration/differentiation and solving at dx/dt=0.

[jamest]

If the summing of series x is doubtful, then we simply cannot say that x = x.

...which would imply that it is possible that x ≠ x. Is there a mathematics version of the principle of explosion? {A, ~A} thinking is a common hallmark of woo as it allows wooheads to conclude anything they wish.

You're calling me 'a woohead' (more trolling) when you have no rebuttal against my reasoning.

[jamest]

Before I proceed do you understand the basic rules of integration? If you don't there's little point in me explaining that t and xare related concepts but time halves not distance.

I don't want you to proceed with that. I want you to address my post.

I have

No you haven't. Let's be clear that my reasoning is a response to mathematics already presented - not to any other math. Therefore, if you want to counter my reasoning, then it will have to be in association with that aforementioned math.

[jamest]

If no actual number is obtained from adding an infinite series together, then we have our answer - an infinite series cannot be summed!

There are tests of whether a series converges or not. The geometric series XC used as an example can be shown to converge.

All you're doing in this thread is putting your ignorance on public display.

Again, any reasoning here has been directed at a specific mathematical proof. I have nothing to say about 'tests' that haven't been discussed.

[the PC apeman]

If the summing of series x is doubtful, then we simply cannot say that x = x.

...which would imply that it is possible that x ≠ x. Is there a mathematics version of the principle of explosion? {A, ~A} thinking is a common hallmark of woo as it allows wooheads to conclude anything they wish.

You're calling me 'a woohead' (more trolling) when you have no rebuttal against my reasoning.

Are you advancing {A, ~A} thinking? If so, you are employing a tactic common among wooheads and I will be glad to rebut it.

[Surendra Darathy]

I still see a problem inherent within the utilised symbology and I will be addressing this at some point today.

Promises, promises! Symbols in mathematics are arbitrary, which is the whole idea of basic algebra, but the concepts they stand in for are not. Either the deficiencies in your mathematics education are worse than I thought, or you are pulling our legs with the above feeble attempt at satirical obscurantism; that, of course, may wander into trolling territory if you keep it up for too long.

Let's parse it, though: James "sees" a "problem" in the "symbology". The problem is "inherent" within the "utilised" symbology. Apparently, all this need imply is that an adequate "symbology" would make it all better.

"I will be addressing this at some point today...". A great lecturer hath spoken.

Again, any reasoning here has been directed at a specific mathematical proof.

No, your reasoning is "mathematical poof".

I have nothing to say about 'tests' that haven't been discussed.

The mathematics I have cited is part of the same system you appear to have started with, all you need are operations on rational numbers. (Rational, here defined mathematically has having to do with ratios of integers. Operations include addition, multiplication, and multiplicative inverses. But perhaps you started with a different system, the woo system.

[jamest]

If the summing of series x is doubtful, then we simply cannot say that x = x.

...which would imply that it is possible that x ≠ x. Is there a mathematics version of the principle of explosion? {A, ~A} thinking is a common hallmark of woo as it allows wooheads to conclude anything they wish.

You're calling me 'a woohead' (more trolling) when you have no rebuttal against my reasoning.

Are you advancing {A, ~A} thinking? If so, you are employing a tactic common among wooheads and I will be glad to rebut it.

Actually, it is Xamonas Chegwé that has apparently applied that reasoning - I just pointed it out. And I've already provided a rebuttal of my own, thankyou.