Hello JR

Agreed, this thread has run far enough and who hasn’t something to learn.

Your problem is what you have learnt at school is wrong or at best unproven.

Infinity remains an absurdity to use the term of recent contributor Kaduseus. Infinite length likewise.

You have learnt things about infinity, e.g. infinity + 1 = infinity, accepted them and now have a feeling of necessity to represent what you have learnt in your later life. This feeling that you have does not make what you have learnt right.

When it comes to the fact that a closed shaped can not be infinite, Leeaus has nothing to learn. You, and most others it would seem, need much tuition in this area.

If you believe that some part of this proof is wrong, please point out exactly which step is flawed. JR

Your proof of the existence of infinite length was flawed on these levels.

1/ It did not encompass all distance. Your infinite length began at zero length.

2/ It used a system of numbers to represent distance. (e was a real number in the proof and distance upon recent questioning of JR). This made your proof meaningless or at least nothing more than the mathematical concept of 1,2,3....infinity. It was not about length, a geometric entity.

True the thread has gone further than need be when it is centred on such obvious nonrepresentational mistakes. Allowing that the world is not ideal, ideally this is the last Leeaus post.

Regards

Leeaus