On Jul 11, 6:19 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jul 11, 5:28 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 9:57 am, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 11, 12:47 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > How would you know if you received a reasoned response? > > > > Because you are acting like a child. > > > You would know if you received a reasoned response because > > I'm acting like a child? I'm not following the logic at work here. > > Because of that, I know I'm not.
Well I guess that at least forms a sentence. However I don't see how my use of admittedly juvenile humor invalidates any of the other things I'm saying.
> > > Laugh all you want and fill out > > > your time sheet with crayons, but don't try to pretend I have imposed > > > a lot of extra onditions other than that you define "by noon" in this > > > context as something other than "before noon or at noon", so you can > > > try to salvage your argument. > > > I didn't say a lot, I said some. Basically you insist on there being > > a last ball that gets removed. There isn't a last natural, so your > > personal requirement is impossible to fulfill. The only problem > > comes in when you add in your inability to recognize that you're > > the source of the problem. > > Hmm, then you cannot complete all and only the naturals? What a > surpise!
Again, I'm having trouble following the logic. There isn't a last natural, so (you conclude) there is no set of naturals? That really only makes sense if it goes along with the assertion that every set is required to have an associated finite sequence. I'm no set theory guy but I'm pretty sure that's not a theorem of ZFC. Again I must conclude the problem is your inability to recognize that you're adding in axioms.
> > > If you agree that "by noon" is thus > > > defined, then you should be able to say whether the vase becomes empty > > > at noon or becomes empty before noon, when asserting that it happens > > > "by noon". > > > In the real world, I'd say the vase becomes empty when the > > last ball is removed. However, in this abstract word problem, > > balls correspond to natural numbers, and so there is no last > > ball. So the question of when the last ball is removed is > > rendered nonexistent. You question is undefined, and so, > > as per Newberry's Principle, it disappears! Thus there *is no* > > question that you have asked, therefor I cannot have failed > > to answer your question. Too bad. > > The whole question is a poorly defined foundation on quicksand.
It's well enough defined as to be entirely clear that there are no balls in the vase at the end.
> > The vase is empty at noon. The vase is not empty at any time before > > noon. > > It cannot empty at any moment.
Again, a personal requirement of yours which I don't accept.
