Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > no of ID's in CSS

Reply
Thread Tools

no of ID's in CSS

 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, "rf" <@invalid.com> quothed

> Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?


Nothing is infinite. We just don't know where some things start and
where some things end.

In astrophysical circles, time itself is sometimes considered to have
started at the Big Bang. So the question is can one have more than 1
thing, or anything at all, without time? If one can't, one certainly
cannot have an infinity of them.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
mbstevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-07-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, "rf" <@invalid.com> quothed
>
>
>>Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?

>
>
> Nothing is infinite.


How would exclude the real numbers,
the integers, and the complex numbers?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed

> Neredbojias wrote:
> > With neither quill nor qualm, "rf" <@invalid.com> quothed
> >
> >
> >>Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?

> >
> >
> > Nothing is infinite.

>
> How would exclude the real numbers,
> the integers, and the complex numbers?


What you're saying is there can be no biggest number, a theory to which
I do not really subscribe. As an *abstract concept*, one of course can
always add something to any number one dreams up, but that is almost
certainly non-indicative of the real physical world. One cannot even
have an unlimited number of abstract concepts because of the real
limitations of his brain or any other physical storage/processing device
and, of course, time.

There is 1, there is 0, and there is what we have now. Nothing more,
nothing less, and no infinities. Furthermore, if you have a singularity
(1), that cannot be infinite in a real sense, either, because such would
require complexity and a singularity is by definition totally uniform.
In addition, a singularity (as far as is known today) is unique and
integral, so by deduction here is a case where 1 does equal 0 in reality
if not in the surrogate of mathematics.

I suppose I should say that by "singularity" I mean lone singularity
although speaking of a singularity in any other sense is preposterous.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
boclair@boclair.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed
>
>
>>Neredbojias wrote:
>>
>>>With neither quill nor qualm, "rf" <@invalid.com> quothed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing is infinite.

>>
>>How would exclude the real numbers,
>>the integers, and the complex numbers?

>
>
> What you're saying is there can be no biggest number, a theory to which
> I do not really subscribe. As an *abstract concept*, one of course can
> always add something to any number one dreams up, but that is almost
> certainly non-indicative of the real physical world. One cannot even
> have an unlimited number of abstract concepts because of the real
> limitations of his brain or any other physical storage/processing device
> and, of course, time.


Infinity is not a number. Any number cannot be infinity. Infinity is
not nothing, nor is it anything. Infinity is without space or time.

Tim Morris

 
Reply With Quote
 
mbstevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2005
Neredbojias wrote:
> With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed
>
>
>>Neredbojias wrote:
>>
>>>With neither quill nor qualm, "rf" <@invalid.com> quothed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you fully understand the concept of infinity?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing is infinite.

>>
>>How would exclude the real numbers,
>>the integers, and the complex numbers?

>
>
> What you're saying is there can be no biggest number, a theory to which
> I do not really subscribe. As an *abstract concept*, one of course can
> always add something to any number one dreams up, but that is almost
> certainly non-indicative of the real physical world.


Any proper notion of infinity is mathematical. The old 'well, it just
goes on forever and ever' stuff has been outdated for over a century.
Mathematics is not physical, no. But mathematics is also the
counterexample to the notion that the only 'real' things are physical.
Mathematics and formal systems are the only methods with which we can be
'certain' of anything. The moment you bring in physical objects, some
amount of uncertainly creeps in.

> One cannot even
> have an unlimited number of abstract concepts because of the real
> limitations of his brain or any other physical storage/processing device
> and, of course, time.


You don't need to think of each and every, say, number. You just need
notions of recursion, the successor function, and such.

>
> There is 1, there is 0, and there is what we have now. Nothing more,
> nothing less, and no infinities.


I have the notion of the predicate calculus augmented by mathematics and
set theory. That is a lot more than 0 and 1.

> Furthermore, if you have a singularity
> (1), that cannot be infinite in a real sense, either, because such would
> require complexity and a singularity is by definition totally uniform.
> In addition, a singularity (as far as is known today) is unique and
> integral, so by deduction here is a case where 1 does equal 0 in reality
> if not in the surrogate of mathematics.
>
> I suppose I should say that by "singularity" I mean lone singularity
> although speaking of a singularity in any other sense is preposterous.



Sorry, but I couldn't make the least sense out of any of the last two
paragraphs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) quothed

> Infinity is not a number. Any number cannot be infinity. Infinity is
> not nothing, nor is it anything. Infinity is without space or time.


Perhaps. But if infinity is without time, it must be nothing to those
with time, mustn't it?

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, mbstevens quothed

> Any proper notion of infinity is mathematical. The old 'well, it just
> goes on forever and ever' stuff has been outdated for over a century.
> Mathematics is not physical, no. But mathematics is also the
> counterexample to the notion that the only 'real' things are physical.
> Mathematics and formal systems are the only methods with which we can be
> 'certain' of anything. The moment you bring in physical objects, some
> amount of uncertainly creeps in.


Yes, I like that. I think I quite agree with you on the saliency of the
concept.

> > There is 1, there is 0, and there is what we have now. Nothing more,
> > nothing less, and no infinities.

>
> I have the notion of the predicate calculus augmented by mathematics and
> set theory. That is a lot more than 0 and 1.


And that is reality - or a mathematical representation thereof.

> Sorry, but I couldn't make the least sense out of any of the last two
> paragraphs.


I was merely stating that a lone singularity is nothing if it has no
effect on anything. However, the supposed singularity that spawned the
Big Bang *did* have an effect: to wit, us and our universe and all that
is or ever was. (Ahem, "is" and "was" are time-dependent notions.)
So... out of nothing comes something, or so say the science boys. But
if that is true, it couldn't have been nothing after all unless you
redefine nothing.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Leonard Blaisdell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2005
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I was merely stating that a lone singularity is nothing if it has no
> effect on anything. However, the supposed singularity that spawned the
> Big Bang *did* have an effect: to wit, us and our universe and all that
> is or ever was. (Ahem, "is" and "was" are time-dependent notions.)
> So... out of nothing comes something, or so say the science boys. But
> if that is true, it couldn't have been nothing after all unless you
> redefine nothing.


alt.philosophy is over there ------>
<h1>I am a singularity</h1> Other than assorted mites,
beneficial/detrimental bacteria, etc. Nothing is me but me. What
composes me is common.
I was blown off by the professor in a physics class when I was a
sophomore or so when I tried to apply entropy to life. Let's talk about
that. His answer was unsatisfying.
All in fun and with a smile.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2005
With neither quill nor qualm, Leonard Blaisdell quothed

> alt.philosophy is over there ------>
> <h1>I am a singularity</h1> Other than assorted mites,
> beneficial/detrimental bacteria, etc. Nothing is me but me. What
> composes me is common.
> I was blown off by the professor in a physics class when I was a
> sophomore or so when I tried to apply entropy to life. Let's talk about
> that. His answer was unsatisfying.
> All in fun and with a smile.


Negative entropy is what I usually get when I ask a broad out on a date.
Just can't understand it.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CSS Layout question - how to duplicate a table layout with CSS Eric ASP .Net 4 12-24-2004 04:54 PM
confused - html validates, css validates but validate css from the html causes errors Titus A Ducksass - AKA broken-record HTML 6 11-15-2004 12:59 PM
Set CSS property equal to another CSS property? Noozer HTML 10 10-13-2004 09:20 PM
Is there a way to set the a CSS property to be explicitly the same as another CSS property? Joshua Beall HTML 1 12-10-2003 07:21 PM
print.css and screen.css tom watson HTML 1 09-09-2003 02:48 PM



Advertisments