Everyone who argued about the mathematical definition of infinity in this thread should be banned from the forums forever.
like I said, infinity is philosophical.. there's very little "math" to it.
Did someone mention philosophy?
One philosophical point that I find many mathematicians (Including my brother, math PhD student) like to ignore is whether or not mathematics is natural or synthetic. I like to think that mathematics is synthetic: IE derived, and therefore infallible. As long as one is clear on one's premises, pure mathematics cannot fail. I have recently come into contact with the philosophical position that mathematics is in fact natural, and exists (or could exist) outside of mankind's influence. I disagree, but one has to be clear on this point (and many others) before any real discussion may be had.
Taking the opposite side from my own position, if Mathematics is natural, we should be able to discover things about it from a naturalistic perspective, and an almost scientific-like approach. Based on this approach, we need only to obverse infinity in nature to make claims on it. Even if (in the philosophically weak case) we presume that even if we cannot perceive infinity in nature, it can still exist, this makes still answers several questions.
Taking my own viewpoint, one merely must lay down their base assumptions, reconcile them with their epistemology, and then build mathematics. Bertrand Russel tried this, and I think I read somewhere that he was unsuccessful. This fact lends credence to the natural mathematics position, but is by no means conclusive. After doing this, you end up with clear logical connections between your premises and conclusions. Arguments against it can only be either: attacking a premise as ridiculous, or finding a logical link to be weak, and pointing that out.
This is why science, mathematics, etc. They are all branches of philosophy. You must get your epistemology straight before any argument, discussion or disagreement can be had.
"Trolling" is a memetic neologism which is unconsciously regurgitated in response to an influx of external stimuli which the observer cannot adequately relate to. The implication is that the observer is insufficient, yet not introspective enough to avoid faulting the precipitating object, as opposed to the true cause of failed comprehension -- himself.
Your use of language is not sufficiently advanced to suggest otherwise. The more popular and frequently used a word becomes, the less it actually means.
Enjoy your maladaptive coping strategy, I guess.
Summarily intellectually decimated.
I don't like to make any assumptions about a person's grasp of "sufficiently advanced" English vocabulary, but you sure reduced him by 1/10'th with your diction. I don't know if I can agree that you did so "summarily" for a number of reasons, one of which is that I construe neither the breadth of a person's memory, nor their ability to either apply or understand it as a measure of their intellect.
----
On topic: I haven't done pull-ups or chin ups in a long time. In Gymnastics, I could do at least 20 (Which I did at least once at the Arnold Fitness Expo for the marine corps). We generally did sets (12,10,8) in our conditioning, but since that was at the end of practice, I certainly could do more when fresh. We did pull ups only. To this day, I can't do a single chin up: Too much arm usage. For reference I was 5'10.5" and 126 lbs.
