Do you realize we just re-elected the conservative party?
They just got kicked out of office, that's the reason we needed another election, for being held in the highest contempt of parliament any party in Canada has ever been.
They just pulled the most illegal bullshit a Canadian political party has ever pulled, and Canadians re-elected them with a higher % & # of seats than they had before.
"you will be a black hole from which nothing escapes the event horizon?"
That seems to accurately depict a lot of trolls. If you replace 'black hole' with brain, accept 'nothing' as referring to thoughts, and replace 'event horizon' with skull.
I wanna see if I can keep at it longer than he does :D
(Will I have to keep it up . . . for near-infinity?!)
Besides, I'm slowly starting to pick up on what words he picks up on in a sentence, which means I'm starting to be able to guide his arguments in hilarious ways!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
"A number which could be any number it is defined to be but for which no specific value is chosen."
From your definition.
Which means an arbitrary number is a number that represents a specific number, but for which no number is chosen.
If you can't understand subtle english, which you've shown you can't, (actually, can you understand english?), then I'll have to give a fuller explanation.
An arbitrary number is a number that is fixed before the equation, regardless of the fact that it is not a specific value, it represents a specific value.
We mostly deal with fixed numbers in math. Numbers that aren't fixed are tricky to deal with, and require a different set of non-trivially resolving rules.
Consider this. I have an infinite amount of objects. 50% of them are round. 50% of them are square. I add a square object. It's still 50% round objects. I add an infinity of square objects. It's still 50% round objects. Half of all the round objects are also flat. So 25% of the objects are round and flat. If I randomly pick an object from amoung these infinity objects, it has 1/4 chance of being round and flat. If I take out an infinity amount of round objects, I still have a 1/4 chance of getting a round and flat object. If I take out all round and flat objects, I now have a 33% chance of picking a round object. The amount of objects I took out when I took out all round and flat objects is exactly equal to the the number of objects I took out when I took out an infinity amount of round objects.
These are non-fixed numbers. Arbitrary numbers can never achieve these characteristics, because you have to be able to pick a number that an arbitrary number represents, you just never do pick a number that it does represent.
So, let's break it down:
A) We know it is a finite value because the monkeys stop after a finite time.
Agree?
B) We know that it is larger than any number you could pick because the monkeys could go on further than that number.
Agree?
C)Any number you could pick = arbitrary number, agree?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
I feel I was being unclear.
An arbitrary number has a limit of itself on the lower, and itself on the upper.
An arbitrary number is itself.
In picking an arbitrary number, you have no limits on either end.
The result is that you can pick any number upto infinity, and it can be an arbitrary number.
But the arbitrary number, being a specific number with an upper limit of itself, as all specific numbers do, is always lower than infinity, and near-infinity.
If you pick a number of consecutive tries on a lottery, there is always the possibility that you will not win the lottery by that number of consecutive tries.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
Try this; in the monkey problem, the number by which all monkeys will have written Shakespeare is within the range
[1, infinity), correct?
"why does an arbitrary number always have to be smaller than a 'near infinite' number"
Because that's the definition.
"Can an arbitrary number have an infinite upper bound as well"
Yes, but unlike a near-infinite number, an arbitrary number is a specific number, even if which specific number it is is not defined. In contrast, a near-infinite value cannot be defined to be a specific number anymore than infinity can.
Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
Long post, so a few errors:
"The answer is Aleph 1; otherwise known as "unaccountably many"."
Unaccountably should be Uncountably.
And heck, why not give a strict definition?
Near-infinity refers to a number that is:
a) Always larger than an arbitrary number.
b) Finite
c) Has an upper-bound at infinity.
The next question we should have, is, Is this definition useful? Does it describe something that exists?
Compare three cases.
I)Each day, I earn half of what I did before, starting on day 1 with $1. When will I have $2?
II)Each day, I enter a free lottery for a grand total of $2. When will I have at least $2?
III)Each day, an infinite number of people enter a free lottery for $2. When will they all have at least $2?
Now, do you agree that II describes a finite number? Do you agree that after some finite period of time, I will have $2? But, before that day comes, are you able to pin down a day by when I will have $2 with absolute certainty?
A day beyond which, there is exactly 0% chance that I will not have won?
So, we have a finite period of time which cannot be described as a number, is always larger than any arbitrary number, and has no upper limit/has an upper limit at infinity.
Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
Allow me to pre-face my reply with this quote, from myself, from the post you replied to:
"If you would argue that near-infinite = infinite, you've missed the definition.
If you would argue that no number is near-infinite, then you've missed the definition as well, since near-infinite does not apply to any number you can name."
"Can you ???"
Yes. Would you like some examples?
"I am an electronics engineer, in my line of work, and throught my career I have used quite a bit of math, (a HUGE amount).
Therefore, my skills are in practicle or APPLIED math, so yes I am aware of thigs such as set theory, I understand infinite I think more clearly than you claim you do."
The more I read of your posts, the more I doubt your qualifications. The proof, they say, is in the pudding, and I'm quite willing to show you my pudding.
"I know all about real and complex and imaginary number, vectors, 'rate of change', integration, and differentiation."
Congratulations, you can pass a 1st year math course.
"Here is a question for you:
How many real numbers exist between the numbers 1 and 2 ??????"
The answer is Aleph 1; otherwise known as "unaccountably many".
"Would the set of real numbers that exist between 1 and 2 be greater than or smaller than or the same size as the set of real numbers between 3 and 4 ???"
Exactly the same size; Proof: F(x):f->g = x + 2
"how many sets of real numbers do you think exist ?"
I'm not sure what you intend to ask; your question is poorly defined in several ways.
To answer the most useful question, the powerset of the set of real numbers has cardinality aleph 2.
"would those sets exceed the number of real integers ?"
See problem with previous question.
Would the size of the powerset of real numbers exceed the size of the set of real numbers? Yes. Alpeh 2 > Aleph 1
"are the integers 1, 2, 3 or 4 'near infinite' OR
do they form a part of an infinite set ? or infinite sets???"
No nameable number can be near-infinite, since a near-infinite number is one which can only be described as a range, with infinity as the upper bound.
Would you like a strict definition?
"is the result of 10 divided 3 and infinite number ?"
no.
"is ZERO (0) near infinite, or is it infinite, is it even a number ???"
Zero is clearly a number, and is not near-infinite or infinite.
"can you conceive that anything that is "near infinite" is itself infinite?"
Can I imagine something which contradicts it's own definition?
"is there a special math symbol for 'near infinite' ?"
Is there a special symbol for 'arbitrary'? How about 'random'? What if I want to differentiate between the different types of random?
"Have you heard your professors use that term or seen them derive a 'near infinite' proof ?"
In computer science, we do look at problems which require near-infinite time, how to recognize them, and how create algorithms which minimize the expected time & memory. They also take advantage of this subject to introduce us to how to manage memory & CPU usage properly. IE: to make a maximum that the program will not exceed.
"is it a countable or uncountable infinite set of numbers, either real, integer or imaginary?"
Is what? Near-infinity?
Besides all the other stupidity around the question, this implies that you think that infinity is a set of numbers?
As it is, I cannot discern what this question is intended to mean, or even make a best guess.
"Would not a series of sets created by an infinite group (monkeys) over infinite time also be infinite"
∞ * ∞ = ∞
"Would an infinite number of combinations of letters created over infinite time result in an infinite number of combinations, therefore all combinations would be created instantly."
Would somethign created over an INFINITE amount of time be created in an INFINITESIMAL amount of time?
errrr . . . no.
But you probably meant to ask, that if we had infinite monkeys creating combinations, would all combinations be created infinitesimally? The answer is still no! All combinations would be created in the time it takes a single monkey to make a single combination.
"do you use 'estimations' like "near" and "far" or "big" or "small", or "close too" when you are working on a pure math problem ?"
Ever hear of 'neighbourhoods'? Yeah, we do.
And there's this whole area of pure & applied math, called Statistics, which hinges completely on 'good enough'.
Estimations, as it happens, has nothing to do with it.
"How often have you had a "near infinite" result ?"
When I'm trying to find out how long a problem will need before it can be solved by an algorithm? Often enough to need to know how to recognize and deal with it.
"My proof that the Monkeys are in fact, a near-infinite time, is this:
Give me a single number of iterations, after which we can guarantee that your group of monkeys have written Shakespeare.
What, that is your proof !!!
Define "a single number of iterations"??"
An iteration = the amount of time it takes a monkey to punch a single key.
The single number then, is the number of keys each monkey will have pressed when they have written shakespeare.
So, give me a number of keys, such that if the monkeys have pressed that number of keys each, then one of them will have written shakespeare.
"So if I give you a single number, like 10 trillion or 10^trillion gogols, is that number "near infinity"."
No, they would not be. After 100^^^googleplex,(knuth arrow notation), there will still be groups of monkeys who have not finished, so those smaller numbers also do not fulfill the question.
"I do not think you have grasped the concept of infinity at all !!!."
I can form well-defined questions about it at the very least, which puts me head and shoulders above yourself.
"A VERY big number, no matter how big, is not and will NEVER BE 'near infinity'."
I agree, that conflicts with the definition of near-infinity.
"And you call yourself a 'would be' math grad !!!!
Now let me take a wild guess, you are the product of the US education system right ??"
I never called myself that; I said I had one course left to graduate. For all you know, I've tried that course several times, and failed each time. As it is, I've never tried it, since I decided that I wasn't ready for the masters level, and that I'd rather be studying a field related to complexity theory. Thus computer science.
Also, I'm German-Canadian.
"1 is as "near infinite" as 100,000,000,000,000, billion, trillion, trillion and 1
no matter what the number is, you have to go an infinite way to be infinite, therefore no finite number is 'near infinite' every number (including infinity itself) is an infinite distance away from infinity... (and every other number !!)."
See the quote at the top of the reply, would you?
"Maybe that is the course you have not done yet !"
The course I haven't done yet is General Topology.
"also set theory "infinity" and 'normal infinity' are (as you should know two different entities, which is why you are so tied up with ordinal's and cardinal's, and "transfinite numbers"."
Depends on what you mean by 'normal' infinity. Definition, please?
"but when you look into it, as you know (having claims you have studied this) I do not see the term "near infinite" in ANY texts."
*pulls "Data Structures & Algorithms: Edition 5" from the shelf*
Page, 488, on bogosort:
" . . . this algorithm will run for near-infinity, but has an expected value that scales with N!. If the infinite universes theorem of Quantum Physics is true, then the algorithm can take advantage of the infinite universes by running once, and then destroying any universe in which the list is not sorted. This is known as the quantum bogosort, and the result will be a sorting algorithm that scales linearly, even after using infinite computational power, so that is clearly the lower bound for sorting efficiency of an unknown list of known size."
"My proof that the Monkeys are in fact, a near-infinite time, is this:
Give me a single number of iterations, after which we can guarantee that your group of monkeys have written Shakespeare.
How do you propose to 'prove' that 'single number' no matter how large is "near infinity" ??
or, DISPROVE, that any single number is not an infinite distance away from infinity."
The point, which I'll say again for your benefit, is that no single number will fulfill the conditions set forward in my question.
Now, let's see if you posted something new while I was typing this up.
People in the comments here need to realize that cell phones connect to multiple towers.
That's how telcos can locate you, (since the towers log everything), which is the information that police would go to a telco with a warrant for.
Without connecting to multiple towers at once, your exact location would be very difficult to determine.
On the post: ITV 'Investigative Reporters' Confuse Video Game With Terrorist Video
Re: Re: Re: Psh
On the post: Canadian Copyright Reform Authors Know The Law Outlaws Circumvention Even If No Infringement... But Don't Seem To Care
Re: Legislative Capture
They just got kicked out of office, that's the reason we needed another election, for being held in the highest contempt of parliament any party in Canada has ever been.
They just pulled the most illegal bullshit a Canadian political party has ever pulled, and Canadians re-elected them with a higher % & # of seats than they had before.
No wonder they feel invincible.
On the post: Is Creating The Same Software Feature Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Yay for word of the day.
That seems to accurately depict a lot of trolls. If you replace 'black hole' with brain, accept 'nothing' as referring to thoughts, and replace 'event horizon' with skull.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: @Freak
I wanna see if I can keep at it longer than he does :D
(Will I have to keep it up . . . for near-infinity?!)
Besides, I'm slowly starting to pick up on what words he picks up on in a sentence, which means I'm starting to be able to guide his arguments in hilarious ways!
On the post: Bethesda Turns Down Quake Fight Over Scrolls Name; Takes Guaranteed Loss By Going To Court
Re: Re:
That's straight from Carl Manneh, with whom I had a long twitter conversation about the store.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Darryl? You're doing it wrong
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
I'm German-Canadian
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
From your definition.
Which means an arbitrary number is a number that represents a specific number, but for which no number is chosen.
If you can't understand subtle english, which you've shown you can't, (actually, can you understand english?), then I'll have to give a fuller explanation.
An arbitrary number is a number that is fixed before the equation, regardless of the fact that it is not a specific value, it represents a specific value.
We mostly deal with fixed numbers in math. Numbers that aren't fixed are tricky to deal with, and require a different set of non-trivially resolving rules.
Consider this. I have an infinite amount of objects. 50% of them are round. 50% of them are square. I add a square object. It's still 50% round objects. I add an infinity of square objects. It's still 50% round objects. Half of all the round objects are also flat. So 25% of the objects are round and flat. If I randomly pick an object from amoung these infinity objects, it has 1/4 chance of being round and flat. If I take out an infinity amount of round objects, I still have a 1/4 chance of getting a round and flat object. If I take out all round and flat objects, I now have a 33% chance of picking a round object. The amount of objects I took out when I took out all round and flat objects is exactly equal to the the number of objects I took out when I took out an infinity amount of round objects.
These are non-fixed numbers. Arbitrary numbers can never achieve these characteristics, because you have to be able to pick a number that an arbitrary number represents, you just never do pick a number that it does represent.
So, let's break it down:
A) We know it is a finite value because the monkeys stop after a finite time.
Agree?
B) We know that it is larger than any number you could pick because the monkeys could go on further than that number.
Agree?
C)Any number you could pick = arbitrary number, agree?
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
And here we see you not knowing basic APPLIED math notation. Which, let me check, YES, is part of standard electrical notation.
[] indicates a limit including the number.
() indicates a limit excluding the number.
So [1,2] indicates a number such that 1 <= x <= 2,
while (1,2) indicates a number such that 1 < x < 2.
And [1, infinity) indicating a number such that 1 <= x < infinity.
So, I'm glad to see you agree with me.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: still 27 not 26 - Rookie error
sohesmatchingtextthatlookslikethis
Further, an earlier article explicitly has a table of powers of 26.
If we wanted to really match the text, there's punctuation, and paragraphs, and spacing lines, and italicization, and a ton of other stuff.
On the post: Once Again, Amazon's One-Click Patent Is Found Not To Infringe On Cordance's One-Click Patents
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
An arbitrary number has a limit of itself on the lower, and itself on the upper.
An arbitrary number is itself.
In picking an arbitrary number, you have no limits on either end.
The result is that you can pick any number upto infinity, and it can be an arbitrary number.
But the arbitrary number, being a specific number with an upper limit of itself, as all specific numbers do, is always lower than infinity, and near-infinity.
If you pick a number of consecutive tries on a lottery, there is always the possibility that you will not win the lottery by that number of consecutive tries.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fact, that's the entire point. It's not even very hard to do, and nowhere near impossible.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
[1, infinity), correct?
"why does an arbitrary number always have to be smaller than a 'near infinite' number"
Because that's the definition.
"Can an arbitrary number have an infinite upper bound as well"
Yes, but unlike a near-infinite number, an arbitrary number is a specific number, even if which specific number it is is not defined. In contrast, a near-infinite value cannot be defined to be a specific number anymore than infinity can.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Learn to count (crawl) before you calculate (run)...
Can't read, can you? If I create random data between a and z, how many characters are I creating?
C'mon, hatebot, show me what ya got.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
"The answer is Aleph 1; otherwise known as "unaccountably many"."
Unaccountably should be Uncountably.
And heck, why not give a strict definition?
Near-infinity refers to a number that is:
a) Always larger than an arbitrary number.
b) Finite
c) Has an upper-bound at infinity.
The next question we should have, is, Is this definition useful? Does it describe something that exists?
Compare three cases.
I)Each day, I earn half of what I did before, starting on day 1 with $1. When will I have $2?
II)Each day, I enter a free lottery for a grand total of $2. When will I have at least $2?
III)Each day, an infinite number of people enter a free lottery for $2. When will they all have at least $2?
Now, do you agree that II describes a finite number? Do you agree that after some finite period of time, I will have $2? But, before that day comes, are you able to pin down a day by when I will have $2 with absolute certainty?
A day beyond which, there is exactly 0% chance that I will not have won?
So, we have a finite period of time which cannot be described as a number, is always larger than any arbitrary number, and has no upper limit/has an upper limit at infinity.
Answers:
I) Infinity
II) Near-Infinity
III) Infinity
Since the 2nd problem has meaning in a finite world, and the other two do not, Near-infinity is a useful term.
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Re: Re: near infinity is infinite - 1 is 'near infinite'
"If you would argue that near-infinite = infinite, you've missed the definition.
If you would argue that no number is near-infinite, then you've missed the definition as well, since near-infinite does not apply to any number you can name."
"Can you ???"
Yes. Would you like some examples?
"I am an electronics engineer, in my line of work, and throught my career I have used quite a bit of math, (a HUGE amount).
Therefore, my skills are in practicle or APPLIED math, so yes I am aware of thigs such as set theory, I understand infinite I think more clearly than you claim you do."
The more I read of your posts, the more I doubt your qualifications. The proof, they say, is in the pudding, and I'm quite willing to show you my pudding.
"I know all about real and complex and imaginary number, vectors, 'rate of change', integration, and differentiation."
Congratulations, you can pass a 1st year math course.
"Here is a question for you:
How many real numbers exist between the numbers 1 and 2 ??????"
The answer is Aleph 1; otherwise known as "unaccountably many".
"Would the set of real numbers that exist between 1 and 2 be greater than or smaller than or the same size as the set of real numbers between 3 and 4 ???"
Exactly the same size; Proof: F(x):f->g = x + 2
"how many sets of real numbers do you think exist ?"
I'm not sure what you intend to ask; your question is poorly defined in several ways.
To answer the most useful question, the powerset of the set of real numbers has cardinality aleph 2.
"would those sets exceed the number of real integers ?"
See problem with previous question.
Would the size of the powerset of real numbers exceed the size of the set of real numbers? Yes. Alpeh 2 > Aleph 1
"are the integers 1, 2, 3 or 4 'near infinite' OR
do they form a part of an infinite set ? or infinite sets???"
No nameable number can be near-infinite, since a near-infinite number is one which can only be described as a range, with infinity as the upper bound.
Would you like a strict definition?
"is the result of 10 divided 3 and infinite number ?"
no.
"is ZERO (0) near infinite, or is it infinite, is it even a number ???"
Zero is clearly a number, and is not near-infinite or infinite.
"can you conceive that anything that is "near infinite" is itself infinite?"
Can I imagine something which contradicts it's own definition?
"is there a special math symbol for 'near infinite' ?"
Is there a special symbol for 'arbitrary'? How about 'random'? What if I want to differentiate between the different types of random?
"Have you heard your professors use that term or seen them derive a 'near infinite' proof ?"
In computer science, we do look at problems which require near-infinite time, how to recognize them, and how create algorithms which minimize the expected time & memory. They also take advantage of this subject to introduce us to how to manage memory & CPU usage properly. IE: to make a maximum that the program will not exceed.
"is it a countable or uncountable infinite set of numbers, either real, integer or imaginary?"
Is what? Near-infinity?
Besides all the other stupidity around the question, this implies that you think that infinity is a set of numbers?
As it is, I cannot discern what this question is intended to mean, or even make a best guess.
"Would not a series of sets created by an infinite group (monkeys) over infinite time also be infinite"
∞ * ∞ = ∞
"Would an infinite number of combinations of letters created over infinite time result in an infinite number of combinations, therefore all combinations would be created instantly."
Would somethign created over an INFINITE amount of time be created in an INFINITESIMAL amount of time?
errrr . . . no.
But you probably meant to ask, that if we had infinite monkeys creating combinations, would all combinations be created infinitesimally? The answer is still no! All combinations would be created in the time it takes a single monkey to make a single combination.
"do you use 'estimations' like "near" and "far" or "big" or "small", or "close too" when you are working on a pure math problem ?"
Ever hear of 'neighbourhoods'? Yeah, we do.
And there's this whole area of pure & applied math, called Statistics, which hinges completely on 'good enough'.
Estimations, as it happens, has nothing to do with it.
"How often have you had a "near infinite" result ?"
When I'm trying to find out how long a problem will need before it can be solved by an algorithm? Often enough to need to know how to recognize and deal with it.
"My proof that the Monkeys are in fact, a near-infinite time, is this:
Give me a single number of iterations, after which we can guarantee that your group of monkeys have written Shakespeare.
What, that is your proof !!!
Define "a single number of iterations"??"
An iteration = the amount of time it takes a monkey to punch a single key.
The single number then, is the number of keys each monkey will have pressed when they have written shakespeare.
So, give me a number of keys, such that if the monkeys have pressed that number of keys each, then one of them will have written shakespeare.
"So if I give you a single number, like 10 trillion or 10^trillion gogols, is that number "near infinity"."
No, they would not be. After 100^^^googleplex,(knuth arrow notation), there will still be groups of monkeys who have not finished, so those smaller numbers also do not fulfill the question.
"I do not think you have grasped the concept of infinity at all !!!."
I can form well-defined questions about it at the very least, which puts me head and shoulders above yourself.
"A VERY big number, no matter how big, is not and will NEVER BE 'near infinity'."
I agree, that conflicts with the definition of near-infinity.
"And you call yourself a 'would be' math grad !!!!
Now let me take a wild guess, you are the product of the US education system right ??"
I never called myself that; I said I had one course left to graduate. For all you know, I've tried that course several times, and failed each time. As it is, I've never tried it, since I decided that I wasn't ready for the masters level, and that I'd rather be studying a field related to complexity theory. Thus computer science.
Also, I'm German-Canadian.
"1 is as "near infinite" as 100,000,000,000,000, billion, trillion, trillion and 1
no matter what the number is, you have to go an infinite way to be infinite, therefore no finite number is 'near infinite' every number (including infinity itself) is an infinite distance away from infinity... (and every other number !!)."
See the quote at the top of the reply, would you?
"Maybe that is the course you have not done yet !"
The course I haven't done yet is General Topology.
"also set theory "infinity" and 'normal infinity' are (as you should know two different entities, which is why you are so tied up with ordinal's and cardinal's, and "transfinite numbers"."
Depends on what you mean by 'normal' infinity. Definition, please?
"but when you look into it, as you know (having claims you have studied this) I do not see the term "near infinite" in ANY texts."
*pulls "Data Structures & Algorithms: Edition 5" from the shelf*
Page, 488, on bogosort:
" . . . this algorithm will run for near-infinity, but has an expected value that scales with N!. If the infinite universes theorem of Quantum Physics is true, then the algorithm can take advantage of the infinite universes by running once, and then destroying any universe in which the list is not sorted. This is known as the quantum bogosort, and the result will be a sorting algorithm that scales linearly, even after using infinite computational power, so that is clearly the lower bound for sorting efficiency of an unknown list of known size."
Bogo-sort:
http://catb.org/jargon/html/B/bogo-sort.html
"My proof that the Monkeys are in fact, a near-infinite time, is this:
Give me a single number of iterations, after which we can guarantee that your group of monkeys have written Shakespeare.
How do you propose to 'prove' that 'single number' no matter how large is "near infinity" ??
or, DISPROVE, that any single number is not an infinite distance away from infinity."
The point, which I'll say again for your benefit, is that no single number will fulfill the conditions set forward in my question.
Now, let's see if you posted something new while I was typing this up.
On the post: Details Emerging On Stingray Technology, Allowing Feds To Locate People By Pretending To Be Cell Towers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FCC
But unless I miss my guess, the police are using the cheapest equipment possible most of the time.
Do you disagree?
On the post: Did A Few Million Virtual Monkeys Randomly Recreate Shakespeare? Not Really
Re: Comparison
That's where my 5.4 trillion unique passes comes from, since 26^9 is ~5.4 trillion.
On the post: Details Emerging On Stingray Technology, Allowing Feds To Locate People By Pretending To Be Cell Towers
That's how telcos can locate you, (since the towers log everything), which is the information that police would go to a telco with a warrant for.
Without connecting to multiple towers at once, your exact location would be very difficult to determine.
Next >>