new visitor with a logic question

I certainly *can* understand infinity to the extent that in a slight of flesh and body and evolutionist with a mite of Hume knowledge may with a feeling for a certain reading of the time of atomism halve this magnitude per time where extinction does not occurr -1/2 eternity of the future. This may be why after I failed to be brought in the fold the sheep of elite academic chairs simply herded me out. Provine was warm to me at first in this marathon. I also think I DO understand it relative to Fourier Series and some kind of clock that would need to be built to syn man-made electromagnetisms and biokinematics but it is alsways best not to get my raw thoughts rather than some scientific analysis as it is likely to be used when applied to a "debate". If the finite of this is found than it could easily be misused by some other attempt to put some logic on a never ending potential. Change is only never ending in so far as something actually changes.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-14-2003]

I was displaying an applicatin of actual infinity NOT any old Agustinian notion. When did GOD hit home runs? I doubt this is in-finity though - hard to say.

I would say, Matchette - "Men are after all, only men, not Gods. Within a relative finite world, nothing can achieve perfection. Admittedly man is not nor will ever be...but...it does does not follow that he cannot be improved."OULINE OF METAPHYSICSNagel and Newmann wrote p 13 "A land of rigours abstraction, empty of all familiar landmarks...but this fact caused no alarm." Godel's Proof.I hope at least I will be found consistent if my attempts to contrain plurivocity do not take or stay on hold.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-17-2003]

If Randy is going to aruge the outlier points which still remain in an aternative way to program inspector gasket. (take a "random" point relative to the OUTSIDE of the triangle and then go 1/2 the distance to the goal (center) and mark the sand there, by chance choose one of the other two verticies and one repeats this somewhat to your other means of obtaining the same)and if the first collected point is geometrically outside the gasket circumscription ( my whole issue with a need to DEFINE ahead of time the SURfACE of Punk Eeek) there will be some hangers on NOT part of the gasket itself. It would be hilarious is not Clinton to Gould if all of Gould's clumpy lumpy not limpy morphospace gels around these kinds of big baby dots. Then I could read eVc with GOOD AND PLENTY. It may be tough and not milk to discrimate the congruence this way incidentally but that is why I suggetted the O-Rang ring, so far - only a dial tone..and my slip SS7 of tongue. I guess I would not calim that as "taking in" T.