Points: 31

# All infinites in math are actually just parenthesis signs

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 17 votes the winner is ...

Alec

Debate details

Publication date

Last update

Category

Philosophy

Time for argument

Three days

Voting system

Open voting

Voting period

Six months

Point system

Four points

Rating mode

Rated

Characters per argument

10,000

Points: 118

Description

Definition of infinity in mathematics:

a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)

a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞)

Round 1

My argument will be based off set theory in math.

In math, there are multiple sets that are recognized as being infinite.

As a side note, all logic is reducible to math, including set theory.

Infinity as per the definition given in the description, is a hypothetical number that encompasses all possible numbers.

However, in set theory, it has been rigorously proven that any set of numbers could potentially be infinite.

So what is the common theme that all of these infinities share?

Parenthesis. Each set is closed off in a parenthesis that encompasses the infinite sets.

It's intuitive for us to think of infinity as going upward. But set theory actually shows us that infinity counts downward by infinitely dividing into smaller portions.

Inversely, an upward infinity seems difficult to show in mathematics other than just assuming it goes upward. Sets, however, show the infinite divide quite nicely. These are how we get irrational numbers like Pi.

So then what is the infinity that we talk about?

My conclusion from this is that infinite is the meta set (meta in this case being the biggest possible set.)

So infinity is not a number that counts forever but basically, the word everything with brackets around it like so [Everything]

Your floor.

Argument:

Not all infinities in math are actually just parenthesis signs. I would say that no infinities in math are actually just parenthesis signs because infinity is a very big number. Parenthesis aren't numbers at all. Infinity is not an operation. Parenthesis can be used as an operation in the equation below:

5(3)=15

Rebuttals:

However, in set theory, it has been rigorously proven that any set of numbers could potentially be infinite.

What does this have to do with parenthesis?

Sets, however, show the infinite divide quite nicely. These are how we get irrational numbers like Pi.

Pi is not infinite. It is less then 4. How does this relate to parenthesis?

So infinity is not a number that counts forever but basically, the word everything with brackets around it like so [Everything]

This is not parenthesis. It has parenthesies in it, but this would b like me saying that H2O is O. O is involved, but it is not the whole thing.

Round 2

Not all infinities in math are actually just parenthesis signs.

Actually they are (3) can be divided infinitely into smaller parts (1 + 1 + 1) (1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2) I can do this until the end of time if I like. It's the enclose of an infinite set.

Infinity is not actually a number either. People think it is, but only because it encloses itself around numbers. Infinity is just the biggest parenthesis possible.

What does this have to do with parenthesis?

The enclosures in set theory have all the same properties of a parenthesis.

Pi is not infinite. It is less then 4. How does this relate to parenthesis?

Pi is infinite. Trying to write Pi down causes is to infinitely shrink into smaller decimals. Everybody knows this. That's why Pi is called an irrational number. The equation to prove Pi is an infinite equation.

This is not parenthesis. It has parenthesies in it, but this would b like me saying that H2O is O. O is involved, but it is not the whole thing.

It doesn't have parenthesis in it, it has them around it. It's a hypothetical border used in math for mathematical sets. Logic is reducible to math. So that means it also applies to logical sets. The only difference is that in logic, The variables act as sets unto themselves to reduce the amount of parenthesis they need. this is also true in math as well, Variables have invisible parenthesis around them.

Conclusion: Infinity is the Meta Set.

Actually they are (3) can be divided infinitely into smaller parts (1 + 1 + 1) (1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2 + 1/2) I can do this until the end of time if I like. It's the enclose of an infinite set.

It's an infinite set but the sum is still 3.

Infinity is just the biggest parenthesis possible.

Infinity is not a parenthesis. They are different concepts.

The enclosures in set theory have all the same properties of a parenthesis.

They have different properties. Infinity cannot multiply other numbers like so:

5(3)=15.

This is a dropped point and I would like the voters to take note.

Pi is infinite. Trying to write Pi down causes is to infinitely shrink into smaller decimals. Everybody knows this. That's why Pi is called an irrational number.

The digits of pi go on indefinitely, but pi it's self is not infinite.

Logic is reducible to math.

Math has logic in it. But they are not the same. Logic can involve non math concepts. Debates should pretty much always use logic. They only sometimes use math.

Conclusion: Infinity is the Meta Set.

This is moving the goalposts which is poor conduct. The original goalposts were, "All infinites in math are actually just parenthesis signs". Unless the meta set is parenthesis signs, my opponent has conceded and contradicted himself and he should lose this debate.

Round 3

It's an infinite set but the sum is still 3.

I know, that's my point. All number lines go on forever, but it's defined by it's set. In math they call this a "different infinity" My point is that what we call infinity in math is not actually infinite. It just looks that way because everytime we look at an "infinity" we use a set enclosure. Infinity in math is a misnomer.

Infinity is not a parenthesis. They are different concepts.

That's just an assertion, you don't support your claim just now. Can you prove they're different concepts? If they're different concepts, then why does a parenthesis show up every time infinity is mentioned in math?

They have different properties. Infinity cannot multiply other numbers like so:5(3)=15.This is a dropped point and I would like the voters to take note.

Actually, they can. Because it's doing it right now in this question. I think I should clarify here that my point in this debate is that there is no actual "infinity". Also, infinity is not a number either. It's a set. Infinity is used to represent the biggest set possible. However, every set is an infinity. These are all facts. The only thing I'm doing is pointing a nomenclature problem. Infinity is simply the meta set.

The digits of pi go on indefinitely, but pi it's self is not infinite.

This is factually wrong. While pi must be finite in reality, in math, it's infinite.

Math has logic in it. But they are not the same. Logic can involve non math concepts. Debates should pretty much always use logic. They only sometimes use math.

This is factually wrong. Logic is reducible to math. These aren't my words. This has been proven by mathematicians. Yes, people can add funny words to logic, but technically, the logic is correct but the people who insert the words essentially change their definitions if they use incoherencies.

This is moving the goalposts which is poor conduct. The original goalposts were, "All infinites in math are actually just parenthesis signs". Unless the meta set is parenthesis signs, my opponent has conceded and contradicted himself and he should lose this debate.

Incorrect. meta set just means "biggest parenthesis possible" I'm not moving the goal post. If infinity is the biggest parenthesis, then it's also a parenthesis, so I"m not moving the goalpost.

Your floor.

My point is that what we call infinity in math is not actually infinite.

Infinity in math is infinitely.

Infinity in math is a misnomer.

If the term is wrong, what would you call infinity? And how do you make the symbol on the computer?

Can you prove they're different concepts?

Parenthesis are used to separate terms from one another, usually or always for the purpose of multiplication.

If they're different concepts, then why does a parenthesis show up every time infinity is mentioned in math?

Not true. I've done lots of math and just because I write an infinity sign does not mean there are parentheses. Sometimes there are, like when separating terms. But this is not a rule.

The digits of pi go on indefinitely, but pi it's self is not infinite.This is factually wrong.

My claim here is factually correct.

This is factually wrong. Logic is reducible to math.

They are similar but not the same. Logic also has some strategy in there. It has facts. It's not all numbers. It's not all math.

Conclusion: Infinity is the Meta Set.

This is moving the goalposts which is poor conduct. The original goalposts were, "All infinites in math are actually just parenthesis signs". Unless the meta set is parenthesis signs, my opponent has conceded and contradicted himself and he should lose this debate.Incorrect. meta set just means "biggest parenthesis possible"

I'm pretty sure that my claim here is correct.

Your turn. Good luck.

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

concession

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Reason:

Up until Pro conceded I would have awarded him arguments. I am interested to know why Pro conceded.

Regardless, all points to Con for Pro's concession.

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

.,

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

I'm late, and Wrick-It-Ralph disappeared.

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

Concession

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

Pro conceded

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

Pro was wrong, parentheses aren’t numbers.

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

CONCESSION BOIIIIIIIII

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

Concession

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

Pro concedes. At the same time, he forfeits one more round than Con. Arguments and conduct to Pro because of the aforementioned reasons.

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✔ | ✗ | ✗ | 1 point |

Reason:

Concession

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Reason:

Concession by Ralph in the final round.

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Reason:

Pro concedes

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

Pro conceded the debate

Criterion | Pro | Tie | Con | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|

Better arguments | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 3 points |

Better sources | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 2 points |

Better spelling and grammar | ✗ | ✔ | ✗ | 1 point |

Better conduct | ✗ | ✗ | ✔ | 1 point |

Reason:

I believe strongly in the notion of Alec and this belief has come from this concession.

I take note that Wrick-it got sick with his limit; he puked out a forfeit EXPRESSION!

I take note that Wrick-it got sick with his limit; he puked out a forfeit EXPRESSION!

Vote Reported: TheAtheist // Mod Action: Not Removed

*******************************************************************