Existence

[DividedsGhost]

Ti-ILE. And because I'm awesome and I'm pretty sure about what you're down with and all, let's do a thing here:


0 isn't a number. It's employed to denote if a limit converges or not. Using mathematical operators on zero has no implied mathematical meaning.

Theoretically it would seem you could say maybe 0 = c-c, where c is a constant; but then 0 would not only equal c-c, but any number or constant. ∞ = c-c = d-d for example, where c and d differ. It's tempting to say then that c-c != d-d and maybe perhaps that (c-c) - (d-d) = c-d


I think there's at least one flaw in your diamond logic (other than you just not getting the point at all)...

Perhaps it's better to put this into another perspective. Take human behavior, for example. Is human behavior static or dynamic? Jungian type attempts to cover both at the same time, which is paradoxical to reason or sense; it is nonsensical; and how you interpret the nonsensical is your own prerogative.

Now infinity is dynamic and numbers are static. To say that infinity is both dynamic and static is nonsensical. So how you interpret it is what it's going to be or mean. The nonsensical is the dualistic opposite from logic. The difference is one operates on axioms and has self-evident meaning and the other doesn't.

Do you understand now?

Edit: Editing out reason as being opposite from the nonsensical because reason is the capacity to understand something, which does not have to be logical. So perhaps it's better to say that reason can be both sensical and nonsensical and that: "The nonsensical is the dualistic opposite from logic (and not reason)".

[Hitta]

0 is a relativistic numerical root in which the number system is always relating to as a point of origin, it does not represent infinity... it more transfinite. Dividing by zero removes the numerical root classifications boundaries which causes the number system to not have any bounded terrain(meaning that it removes the context of the numbers). Dividing by zero represents infinity. When infinity is used in a limit context, it is only the idealization of approaching towards. Basically the infinity symbol when used in limit context basically represents a never ending number system(which isn't infinity, it's transfinite as the definition of numbers are always dependent on the persons relativistic context to zero).

If infinity is divided by infinity(both in the sense of both being unbounded) then there is no relativistic context created by dividing them by each other as there is no definition given to the values that are being divided. Infinity/Infinity still equals infinity or unbounded.

[DividedsGhost]

If infinity is divided by infinity(both in the sense of both being unbounded) then there is no relativistic context created by dividing them by each other as there is no definition given to the values that are being divided. Infinity/Infinity still equals infinity or unbounded.

For what it's worth, your post makes sense to me. But FYI, the bolded contradicts the nonbolded, which is the same kind of mistake K0rpsey attempted. Considering the unbolded, it can't equal infinity or unbounded; it can't equal anything because it isn't static to begin with.

It's like if I were to make a sandwich and you were to play a computer game. Then if we were asked to divide my experience by yours, what would we get? Or if we divide your experience by mine, what would we get? I'd probably say "Fuck, I don't know/care. Whatever makes you happy or whatever you say that doesn't bother me on a personal level is fine with me." Point is, infinity represents a set of all processes that converge on infinity or unbounded. It's not statically defined. It is many things and perhaps an infinite number of things. A number is one distinct thing.

[Hitta]

For what it's worth, your post makes sense to me. But FYI, the bolded contradicts the nonbolded, which is the same kind of mistake K0rpsey attempted. Considering the unbolded, it can't equal infinity or unbounded; it can't equal anything because it isn't static to begin with.

It's like if I were to make a sandwich and you were to play a computer game. Then if we were asked to divide my experience by yours, what would we get? Or if we divide your experience by mine, what would we get? I'd probably say "Fuck, I don't know/care. Whatever makes you happy or whatever you say that doesn't bother me on a personal level is fine with me." Point is, infinity represents a set of all processes that converge on infinity or unbounded. It's not statically defined. It is many things and perhaps an infinite number of things. A number is one distinct thing.

Well yes I agree with you entirely which is sort of my point. the whole idea of using infinity as a constant is sort of paradoxical. I'm just trying to make the point that, infinity being divided by infinity doesn't really bind the number system in itself . The idealization of infinity is what binds the number system as to quantify infinity you have to construe it as a constant. So in a way, its kind of a which side of the fence argument. You can accept the idealization of infinity, which therefore would cause the equation of infinity/infinity to be 1. Or you can actually take the unbounded concept of infinity, which therefore would make the equation in itself impossible.

On the other hand, using that as a representative of transfinite summation may actually equal 1, the only problem transfinite identity would have to be parallel. For them to be parallel, they'd have to be the limit of the same equation, which tbh sort of trivializes that scenario.

[woofwoofl]

I type k0rpsey as IEI, polikujm as EII and Aiss as ILI, for example. polikujm doesn't even self-type as ILI anymore. Is there any Gamma Irrational I'm treating that cruelly other than you and the two Kageros?

Another huge thank-you to aestrivex/niffweed:

http://www.socionics.ws/wiki/index.p...ex/spreadsheet

See where it says "k0rpsey" in the leftmost column? See that row of s and n/as, marred by one lone errant typing of ? Either you were wrong then, you're wrong now, or both.

Scroll down a bit and stop when you find "nanashi". Look across there, see some permutation of and wall-to-wall along with the n/as, and the odd man out is that lonely .

Now go all the way up to "aixelsyd". Gamma Irrational across the board. One lone typing. From you. Again.

Go all the way down. "woofwoofl". across the board. Almost.

Symmetry time. Scroll up to "cpig". Yet another Gamma Irrational. Yet another lonely Delta typing.

Once final time, scroll down, this time stopping at "galen". LSI? Guess you had to make room for all those incoming "IEE"s... didn't expect you to fling him that far though...

And for the record, Se-Base types are not necessarily badasses. That's not how Socionics typing works.

I never said that

The both of us drifted a bit there; to get things on track, here's your original post:

Why can't I choose more than one? I'm in doubt between SLE, ILE and maybe SLI (SLI esp how you explain stuff). I think SLE is the most likely, and you seem more interested in your appearance - and you seem to "prepare" yourself with that macho chain on the outside . (and LOL @ at typing Jinxi IEI, sheep)

Btw, I saw your video, is your gf IEE?

Nice move on calling his sister his girlfriend though

[The Ineffable]

...

That list is slightly obsolete. My last typings on wooflwoofl, aixelsyd and nanashi are IEE, k0rpsey IEI and cpig ESI.

[krieger]

http://api.ning.com/files/G5*D1p6hOq...uppetLaugh.gif

[DividedsGhost]

On the other hand, using that as a representative of transfinite summation may actually equal 1, the only problem transfinite identity would have to be parallel. For them to be parallel, they'd have to be the limit of the same equation, which tbh sort of trivializes that scenario.

You might know more about Transfinite numbers in set theory, but I thought the idea was to show that some infinite sets can be mapped one-to-one, meaning that each element in that set is distinct from every other element. And that some sets, such as the real numbers are uncountable because Cantor's Diagonal Argument shows that no matter how we try to order the real numbers, there is always a real number that will not be included in our ordering. I thought it has a different meaning here because the idea is to prove that some infinite sets can be enumerated and then can be compared against each other based on how they relate; so we are now using different operators that can only be applied to sets; implicitly meaning that +,-,*,/ makes no sense in set theory. Which would mean it doesn't make sense to use transfinite numbers to prove infinity/infinity = 1.

So I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make sense, unless as you say they were both the same infinite sets; but it would seem trivial as you say because we still wouldn't be able to use that 1 to compare a set against another, since they will all be 1. And then 1 is no longer a distinct representation of anything.

[Hitta]

You might know more about Transfinite numbers in set theory, but I thought the idea was to show that some infinite sets can be mapped one-to-one, meaning that each element in that set is distinct from every other element. And that some sets, such as the real numbers are uncountable because Cantor's Diagonal Argument shows that no matter how we try to order the real numbers, there is always a real number that will not be included in our ordering. I thought it has a different meaning here because the idea is to prove that some infinite sets can be enumerated and then can be compared against each other based on how they relate; so we are now using different operators that can only be applied to sets; implicitly meaning that +,-,*,/ makes no sense in set theory. Which would mean it doesn't make sense to use transfinite numbers to prove infinity/infinity = 1.

So I'm pretty sure that wouldn't make sense, unless as you say they were both the same infinite sets; but it would seem trivial as you say because we still wouldn't be able to use that 1 to compare a set against another, since they will all be 1. And then 1 is no longer a distinct representation of anything.

Yes thats what I meant about them being parallel sets, otherwise the idea makes no sense at all, and I'm still not quite sure that actually makes 100% sense with parallel sets.

[Korpsy Knievel]