If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities, and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and.....(…)…
OP here I'm a faggot btw
>>16924878>and... then that must
>>16924878>If there are an infinite number of natural numbers,So prove it, show me the infinitest natural number.
>>16924919countable infinity means1) you can enumerate what you are counting and2) you can count an arbitrary number of them (i.e. name a number and i can name another that hasn't been enumerated yet)
>>16924928>countableDoesn't appear anywhere in the thread until you brought it up, OP didn't say it was countable, he said there was an infinite number.>an arbitrary number of themOP wasn't considering an arbitrary number of naturals, he was posing a hypothetical infinite number of them.>name a number and i can name another that hasn't been enumerated yetThen you have refuted OP since there is not an infinite number of naturals, there is an arbitrary large number that never actually reaches an infinity and you can't actually enumerate some of them since the length would exceed the character limit and eventually outnumber your own neurons such that you couldn't possibly rattle off the next number just like an x-bit computer that reaches it rollover limit.
>>16924878No.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxGsU8oIWjY
>>16924878>you see that, it's an apple and a half>:(
>>16924878would you feel better if numbers just end at some arbitrary point?
>>16924959They basically do if you are using radial circular logic of degree where 2*x*pi can just be simplified as 0.
>>16924964>they just do if you heap on my irrelevant assumptions
>>16925139The only assumption is the axiom of radial circular logic where 2*x*pi can just be simplified as 0 since 2*pi is the period of a circle, its how the math works, not some kind of additional assumption, but true by definition.
>>16926215yes, and that is totally irrelevant and out of the blue.
>>16924930>Doesn't appear anywhere in the thread until you brought it upyeah, maybe OP was talking about some other, uncountable set of rationals. one can never be sure.
>>16926216No, someone asked about if numbers could just end and in radial logic, they do end and reset every 2*pi back to 0, you just don't understand the topic so you don't understand how it applies to the conversation.
>>16924964>>16926215>>16926222>radial circular logicmh, i think you should ease on the grok, pal
>>16926224I think you should just study the unit circle so you actually understand the topic of conversation.
>>16926216>>16926224You prefer 0-360 degrees instead since pi is irrational or something?
half A press
>>16926230OP is about natural numbers and fractions. anyone bringing in anything else is a pathetic failure thinking that baby's first not-quite-trivial group will impress other people.
>>169263910-360 are all natural numbers that represent the fraction of traversal around the circumference of a circle, the only pathetic thing is your nonexistence understanding of the unit circle and radial logic that lead you to be completely flummoxed by the fact that radial logic doesn't necessitate unlimited linear growth since it resets back to the origin orientation every 360 degrees.
there's only one true infinity, and everything else is merely reflecting its properties. every time you go "infinite infinities" it's just "reflection of reflections".
>>16927780>there's only one true infinitySo infinity is just the absolute value of 1 which is why 1 actually equals .999...?
