[John Larkin]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 11:59:58 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 08:18:03 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:18:28 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On the above, I'm not at odds with you except for the "brutal honesty"
part which, when you're found to be in error, all of a sudden doesn't
apply to you.

---
JF

I make mistakes all the time, and a lot of my ideas get paved over by
somebody else's ideas. I work with some *very* smart people who, in
their areas, know a lot more than I do. That's part of the fun of
playing with ideas.

---
Apples and oranges.

You're talking about who you are at work and I'm talking about who you
are here; obviously two different people.

It's a newsgroup, not life.


---

But if you want to argue over definitions, like whether something
that's unboundedly large can be referred to as "infinite", that's just
words, definitions, and doesn't matter.

---
Total nonsense since if words and definitions didn't matter then
there'd be no purpose for language.

The thing is though, that it can't be unboundedly large as long as
there's something other than zero in the denominator, and if it takes
any power at all to switch it, you're stuck with less than infinite
gain.

What is infinity/1 ? You seem to be arguing that nothing can ever be
unboundedly large since any number can be divided by 1.


Approaching infinity in the limit, but never quite able to get there.

That's the way infinity tends to work. I was taught that infinity
isn't a number, it's a limit.

( Lim (1/x) as x0 ) infinity

which works well enough in engineering.

John