Actually, tracer, the universe is 18 years, 5 months, 21 days, and some hours old. That is, the world is precisely as old as I am. It was created sometime on the morning of July 20th, 1981. Any “history” or “memories” before that point are an amusing fiction also created at that point. The universe will end sometime in the next 80 years (probably) when I die. No need to worry about infinity, actually.
I like solipsism.
Anyway.
Lib, I just restate what was said above, and hope for a straight answer.
If there is no infinity, what is the largest number?
RM Mentock:
What a remarkably gifted teacher you are!
You asked just the right questions designed, as I see in retrospect, to determine exactly how it was I was thinking. Armed with this understanding, you then explained just the right details in just the right way. If you are not a teacher by profession, then you have missed your calling.
The only way I know to thank you is to give you Proof 2 to use as a means to teach about irrelevant conclusion fallacies (ignoratio elenchi).
Your treatment here of the fallacy is classic. I think all fallacies that fall under the heading of missing the point are the most difficult to see subjectively, and the most difficult to point out objectively because the arguer is content that his proof is without flaw. And it is, except that his conclusion doesn’t mean what he thought it did. The problem is not in the details, but in the gestalt.
You are not just a master logician, but a peerless empathizer. If you had simply stated up front, “that is an irrelevant conclusion, because .7… is not derived from .7[n], but from 7/9”, I might have continued to flail around with all sorts of question begging. “I’m not stupid, so therefore I have it right.”
I’m thankful to you because you have edified me. Whenever I see your handle around the boards here, I will always give your opinions the very highest respect. I will know that they are held by a great thinker, even if they differ from my own. That’s not to say that you’re infallible, of course. I believe that you are the kind of person who, if shown to be mistaken in the way you have shown me, will change his mind and admit his error.
I admit mine.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Whatever that means.
Right now, we don’t have a clear notion of what set of numbers we have to work with in LibMath, or what axioms or arithmetical properties LibMath allows us. So how can anything be right or wrong, true or false?
Firefly:
What a delightful dichotomy! 
You really don’t have a clue, do you? (Hint: you can go home now. It’s over.)
RM Mentock:
If you wish to join the others and pound on me a bit, I won’t mind. I’ll take it all in fun, because I know that your good wisdom is exceeded only by your good character.
Thanks again.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
I know when there’s a basis for doing mathematics, and when there isn’t. You don’t, apparently.
[Queen]
Galileo, Galileo.
[/Queen]
If the magnitude of a man’s character approaches the magnitude of his knowledge, then he has something worth bragging about. But of course, he wouldn’t, would he?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Libertarian, are you trying to make some strange parody of the religious debates? If you are, math is the wrong subject to choose.
There’s always another beer.
Beeruser:
Gosh, I guess it almost looks that way, doesn’t it? I suppose I was cast as the lone atheist (though Sake was a sympathiser), who was mercilessly assailed by the Christian witch-hunters, led by the evil Reverend Firefly. But just as I was being tied to the stake amid shouts of “Heretic! Fiend! Blasphemer!”, along came the kindly and wise Rabbi Mentock who, like an angel of mercy, untied me and explained Infinity to me.
Uncanny.
I’ll try to think of something else that is more open to debate, but that does not concern religion, politics, or philosophy.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Nothing like a successful resolution!
Now I need a couple of days to absorb everything said here!
Sorry I could be little more than a sympathizer, Libertarian, but I did enjoy watching you fight the good fight and graciously conceed. I now better understand the mathematical basis of infinity and why it has nothing to do with philosophy.
Hell is Other People.
Libertarian:
I never said anything about politics or philosophy. I was just commenting on the extremely large volume of religious debates (and the fact that all other debates became religious). It seems to have died down to a respectable level now though 
PeeQueue
Libertarian
Actually, I thought that early on. Pretty crafty. BTW, thanks for the good words, and the nomination in the popularity contest–it looks like you’re one of the front runners yourself. Me, I have skeletons in my closet:
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000229.html
Rabbi Mentock? Hmmm. How about Father Mentock?
.
PeeQueue:
Glad to be of service. It is kind of hard to eschew philosophy altogether. I mean even atheism is a philosophy of sorts.
(By the way, did you realize that your handle could be interpreted as a line at a urinal?)
Sake:
Keep the faith, my friend.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
I would like to congratulate Libertarian on his newfound knowledge and his gracious acceptance of same.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
RM Mentock:
As you wish, Father. I also mentioned you in the Atheist Religion thread.
Let me ask you a question, though. Why didn’t you just chuck your spear like all the others did? Why was it worth it to you to first find the error, and then to lead me without condescension to the proper way to look at it?
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
Hehe, yes I did realize that. It makes me laugh 
PeeQueue
Spiritus:
Thanks. I am always more than happy to learn something new. In fact, it’s my single favorite thing to do.
For your benefit in the future, perhaps in trying to get your point across to others, it is not enough to simply say “the 08 was never there”. Clearly, the other person thinks it is there. Therefore, use the method Father Mentock used to respectfully find out why they think the way they do. Only then can you communicate with them and get them to see things your way.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
::groan:: Atheism is a much a philosophy as lack of belief in Santa Claus or souls is a philosophy. Materialism, Orthonoidism (of whatever Poly calls it), Naturalism, etc. are philosophies, and are common in atheists. I hereby sentence you to read the first two pages of the Atheist Religion (I) where we went over this.
A word (or several) from the Evil Reverend Firefly (maybe I should adopt that as my new sig):
With all due respect, Lib, it was fairly late in the going that I discerned that you were trying to come up with a whole new mathematical system. (This despite printing the first couple of pages out, and parsing them line by line to make sure I wasn’t missing anything.)
Before that point, I understood you to be saying, of the real number field as normally accepted, “there’s no such thing as infinity - I don’t care what mathematicians have proved.” (Especially after the remark about Cantor.) If I misinterpreted you, I apologize.
After that point, I tried to ask some questions about what you were assuming, and felt that I was basically brushed off.
I hardly felt that I ‘led’ anyone in this discussion; a lot of other people shared my confusion, that’s all. Throughout, it’s been hard to figure out what you meant.
4a) There’s nothing mathematically wrong about coming up with new axiomatic systems; it’s fun to try, and some of them are actually useful. But if that’s what you’re doing, but everybody thinks you’re working with the real number field, you’re gonna get people confused and pissed. It would’ve happened without my help.
Let’s take a look at your response to my first post on this thread. I’d asked you a question to find out what your notation meant (and I wasn’t the last, as you noticed). Your response was to tell me that I’d ‘sided’ with a proof (huh?), that you would concede my point, for argument’s sake (what point?), and you said I was assuming that unequal numbers had other numbers between them. When I later provided a proof, so it wouldn’t be an assumption anymore, you jumped on my case about that.
You told people that .0[n-1]1 was defined, before you defined it.
You required closure under division/mult. inverse (other than div. by zero, which is ok), but not addition or subtraction, apparently. I never could figure that one out.
The “I’m glad I didn’t throw away my logic textbooks…” was about providing the Latin name for a logical fallacy, which you routinely do. Since most of us don’t know which Latin phrase goes with which fallacy, it’s pretty Bill Buckleyish to toss them in there all the time like you do. And when I did it (with a sigh of relief that I kept my texts), you jumped all over my case about that. Whatever.
You asked that people review your proofs for flaws, with their logic magnifying glasses. I was the first, I believe, to go through your proofs line by line. You ignored that, preferring to jump all over a minor remark of mine. It’s always easier to hurl invective, isn’t it?
Well, enough of this. Glad RM Mentock explained whatever it was that you didn’t understand. Next time, if you can spare a moment from flaming me, I might even help.
Umm… Let’s see. Huh???
Can I buy a vowel or someone please give me a clue? I have no idea what happened here. Libertarian presented us with two “proofs” admitting one was flawed and that he knew where the flaw was. Then three pages later, thanks Father Rabbi Mentock for untying him or something.
I want to thank Dark Wing Duck for his kind words about my post.
Congratulations to RM Mentock for winning whatever…???
Libertarian said
[quote]
you can go home now.
[quote]
(I know this was addressed to RTFirefly and not to me, but it sounds like a great idea.)
I’m outta here.
Virtually yours,
DrMatrix