woohoo! thread #3000!

Congratulations!

Fact: The Wikipedia says that 3000 is the natural number following 2999 and preceding 3001.
 
The thread should really be entitled "The truth about Trinity" so that there are threee of those...
 
This is a form of discrimination. I see a law suit coming.

3000: Hahahahaha I'm so special.
2999: I'm secondary.
3001: I'm tertiary.

32: Get off the high horse!!! Why do you get to be so famous? I'm two to the power of five. The square of me is 1024, the number of bytes in a kilobyte.

100: This guy thinks that because he ends with three zeros and starts with the digit 3 that he gets to lord it over all of us. I'm the boiling point of water, so why can't I be special too?

101: Let's start a riot!!!!

1: I'm a natural number too. In fact, I'm the first one!!!! I will be the leader of the rebellion.
 
A Cup of Tea said:
Well, it's wikipedia, so...
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable point. OK I'll construct a proof and you can critique. Let us assume that 3000 is the last countable number, so the highest. In that case 3001 isn't possible. And lets assume that 3000 is also the lowest in which case 2999 is also impossible. That means the only countable number, 3000, has ordinal 1, an uncountable ordinal. Basically 3000 has the same obstructive qualities as infinity under these constraints since its ordinal of 1 is uncountable. The same problems occur if we eliminate any other number before or after 3000, because its ordinal will be uncountable from some direction. Therefore if 3000 does not lie between 2999 and 3001 its ordinal is uncountable, and the number becomes useless. A useless number is no number at all. However since we assume 3000 is a number, it is therefore useful and countable with a countable ordinal of 3000 which truthfully lies between the ordinals 2999 and 3001.
 
Dream said:
Going over people's heads is what helps to make a proof bulletproof.
Click to expand...

Is it really that bulletproof? Look here, I have a logic gun. It's used to destroy people's logic. It fires logic bullets and I am going to aim it at your post and make random words disappear (by deleting them) from your post so that your logic gradually falls apart.

Of course, that is cheating.:D I wouldn't be attacking your argument, but rather censoring parts of it so that people forget parts of it. Then when someone else who has never seen your post starts reading it, they see an incomplete argument.

In real life, I would achieve this by hiring a hacker who will hack into interfaith.org and delete random words so that your logic goes from being perfect to being flawed.

Nothing is indestructible. My machine gun may not be able to penetrate your hardened steel bunker with normal bullets, but if I fill the bullets with acid, your bunker will eventually buckle and collapse. I could also upgrade them to being armour piercing and explosive bullets. That would make them even more destructive. In real life, it would be as if my hacker-hitman caused some collateral damage and destroyed other parts of the web site. For example, it might delete a few forums, users and even moderators.
 
I should probably mention that I don't know how to construct mathematical proofs but enjoy doing so from time to time regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top