I saw it, ... he distinctly says "well one over infinity that's zero, so you get nothing from that". — Metaphysician Undercover

And, you said: your method is the same as the one on the video. — Metaphysician Undercover

You can insist, as fishfry stated, that this is the convention in such procedures, to take one divided by infinity as zero. — Metaphysician Undercover

"Infinite" means unlimited. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you apply limits to the unlimited, you are either contradicting or rounding off. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you will not accept the fact that you are rounding off, then the paradox arises due to the contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

that describes exactly what is the case with the volume of Gabriel's horn — Metaphysician Undercover

The "real answer" is — Metaphysician Undercover

To impose a limit on the infinite is to contradict. — Metaphysician Undercover

Saying that 1/infinity equals zero is obviously an instance of rounding off. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's nothing wrong with rounding off. We do it all the time with pi, square roots, etc. That's how we get the job done by rounding off. If we couldn't round off, we couldn't get the job done in many instances. So you shouldn't be embarrassed by it. — Metaphysician Undercover

You should be embarrassed by insisting that it's not an instance of rounding off, when it clearly is, though. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you know of a method to figure out the volume of that horn, — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's how a limit works:
$\lim_\limits{x \rightarrow \infty}{\frac{1}{x}}=0$ — InPitzotl

Sure chief, one over infinity is zero, and that's not a matter of rounding off. — Metaphysician Undercover

The volume of the horn is only determined as finite when the infinite radius is rounded off to zero at some determinable length, as is demonstrated by the YouTube video. — Metaphysician Undercover

Clearly you are using a different calculation than the one in the video then. If you know of a method to figure out the volume of that horn, which avoids rounding off the infinitely small dimeter to zero, then maybe you should present it for us. — Metaphysician Undercover

In other words you want the paint to follow different rules for the inside of the horn, than for the outside of the horn, allowing a finite volume of paint to cover an infinite surface area on the inside, but not the outside. — Metaphysician Undercover

Obviously, if we can assume that the horn is infinitely long, with an infinitely small diameter, we can also assume that the paint can go infinitely thin. — Metaphysician Undercover

so whatever the layer is, it will be multiplied by infinity, — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you agree that if the horn is allowed to go infinitely thin, then the paint must play by the same rules, and be allowed to go infinitely thin as well? — Metaphysician Undercover

The physical properties of the paint being incompatible with an infinite horn, was already rejected as not the subject of this discussion. If we were discussing whether the molecules of paint could fit down inside an infinitely small tube, we might just as well reject the infinitely small tube as a nonsensical proposition in the first place. — Metaphysician Undercover

Andrewk does not provide a solution. The inside of the horn has a non-zero diameter with infinite extension. This means that there is an infinite surface area on the inside of that horn, to be covered with paint, just like there is on the outside. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how this is relevant. Are you forgetting that it's infinitely long? — Metaphysician Undercover

so whatever the layer is, it will be multiplied by infinity, — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't see how this is relevant. Are you forgetting that it's infinitely long? — Metaphysician Undercover

It doesn't really matter how many time less than a layers worth of paint you're putting in there, it's infinitely long, so whatever the layer is, it will be multiplied by infinity, — Metaphysician Undercover

In terms of the so-called paradox, do you not agree that if the paint could fill the horn, then necessarily that same volume of paint paints the surface (boundary) of the horn? — tim wood

Because filling the inside means the inside is painted, — tim wood

The shape is only said to have finite volume because of the method employed to determine the volume. — Metaphysician Undercover

As explained above, this method assumes a point where the radius of the shape is zero. Therefore this method contradicts the premise of the problem, which states that the horn continues infinitely without reaching a zero radius. — Metaphysician Undercover

Andrewk does not provide a solution. The inside of the horn has a non-zero diameter with infinite extension. This means that there is an infinite surface area on the inside of that horn, to be covered with paint, just like there is on the outside. — Metaphysician Undercover

If the argument is that the thickness of the paint prevents it from going into that tiny channel, then we're just arguing physical properties, which has already been dismissed, as not what is to be discussed. — Metaphysician Undercover

So, as I said this implies a zero radius and therefore closure of the horn. That's the reason for the appearance of a paradox. — Metaphysician Undercover

For those of you, like InPitzotl, that have difficulty in understanding the difference between "social distancing" and "herd immunity", — Roger Gregoire

Bottom-line — Roger Gregoire

For the more healthy people we get to take off their masks and start social distancing full time, the faster this virus will dissipate, and the more lives we will save. — Roger Gregoire

To control a germ, the goal is to get enough people {recovered and immune} and fewer people {dead} so that the germ has no susceptible people left to infect. Some people {Roger} argue we should get people into the immune bucket by just letting them get infected, and then recover, like a big global chicken pox party for Covid-19. But without a vaccine, if the only pathway to this recovered group is to get infected, that means some people are going to end up here... dead. What a vaccine does is let you jump straight from {susceptible} to {recovered and immune}, and avoid {dead}. And if we have a choice that lets us avoid death, why wouldn't we take it? — Dr. Joe Hanson

It will mimic me in the first minute, then start repeating itself while I adapt and change my behavior pattern. — Christoffer

Why bring it up then? We are, after all, discussing physically identical objects (p-zombies and human beings)? — TheMadFool

Which is simpler, a brain or a conscious brain? — TheMadFool

1. IF physicalism is true THEN p-zombies are impossible.
2. P-zombies are possible
Ergo,
3. Physicalism is false — TheMadFool

That's begging the question. — TheMadFool

A laptop in sleep mode is simpler of course and that actually proves the point that given a certain level of complexity, a simpler stage/state is a given. — TheMadFool

I don't have to draw the distinction between awake and asleep — TheMadFool

my argument is specifically about consciousness as we understand it (awake) vs a p-zombie (behaving exactly like an awake human being). — TheMadFool

Which is simpler, a brain or a conscious brain? Doesn't matter if it's physical or not (no petitio principii)? — TheMadFool

We can do this state by state (or maybe city by city, or community by community). For example, let's take all the immune people in Oklahoma and ship them Arizona, that way we now have 100% certainty that these immune Oklahoman's, that now are in Arizona, will not shed any virus whatsoever back into Oklahoma. — Roger Gregoire

InPitzotl, you are very disingenuous. — Roger Gregoire

You seem to be more interested in finding ways to insult than in giving a straight answer. — Roger Gregoire

Let's assume the herd immunity threshold value is 60%. — Roger Gregoire

And you say, all we need to do is not let these immune people shed virus back into the environment, and we get the protective effect to the other 40 vulnerable people. — Roger Gregoire

For discussion purposes only, I'll oversimplify. Let's say everyone is either healthy, or vulnerable. I'll grant 1 and 2 literally; vulnerable people who get sick die, and healthy people who get sick become immune. Unstated, for simplicity, let's presume that everyone who is vaccinated becomes immune.

But here's how the mechanics work. Everyone starts out uninfected, call that state (A). They can become infected, state (B), if exposed to a carrier. A carrier is essentially another person in state (B). Then if the person is healthy, they go to state (C1), immune. If they are vulnerable, they go to state (C2), dead. So in these terms we want to minimize the number of people in state (C2), death by covid. — InPitzotl

So now I ask -- how do these 60 statues provide protection over the 40 vulnerable people in the community? — Roger Gregoire

In other words, if a virus found its way into this community of now 100% vulnerable people, what would protect them? — Roger Gregoire

Without immune people in the mix, what is protecting them???? — Roger Gregoire

...and your answer is "distance"? — Roger Gregoire

...do we need to distance these statues to a remote island? — Roger Gregoire

...will that then magically protect the 40 vulnerable people? — Roger Gregoire

I think you need to look in the mirror, and take a closer look at your own words: — Roger Gregoire

So again, our discussion is done, as I prefer not to debate with dishonest, disingenuous people. — Roger Gregoire

Do you exist more than a moment? Are you a different person every day? Will your subjective experience continue after your death? What are the theories of mind that match with Closed Individualism? — Philosophuser

This is often discussed with the Teleporter Paradox: if a machine scan your body, destroy it and create an exact replica with other atoms in Mars, is he you, or another person? — Philosophuser

After your death, since all of your experiences are just based on atoms, — Philosophuser

Perhaps, if consciousness emerge from some particular arrangement of atoms, the brain as a whole is conscious and his activity just make it feel one way or another, allowing you to have always the same consciousness all your life, because what matters is the sistem as a whole. What are the theories about the consciousness that allow you being always the "same", and stop feeling at death? — Philosophuser

Sorry InPitzotl, this (your reply) comes across as a creative "non-answer" to me. — Roger Gregoire

Its just a simple question. A simple sentence is all thats needed, — Roger Gregoire

I don't need a micro detailed account. — Roger Gregoire

Either you know how a community of 100% vulnerable can be protected (in the absence of immune people) or you don't. — Roger Gregoire

We obviously disagree over the CDC's usage of "person-to-person" in their definition of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire

Okay, so what about this, how do we provide protection to vulnerable people if there are no healthy people in the same environment? — Roger Gregoire

But if you could, then what would be left to provide the protective effect to the vulnerable? — Roger Gregoire

This is an example of bad science (...science that disregards logic). — Roger Gregoire

People's respiratory systems are NOT directly connected to one another. — Roger Gregoire

This is an IMPORTANT distinction that changes the mathematics involved in calculating probabilities and risk. — Roger Gregoire

Yes, if they claim that the virus transmits "person-to-person", then logically, they are wrong. — Roger Gregoire

Making an "appeal-to-authority" (a logical fallacy) is an irrational means of arguing; has no logical basis. — Roger Gregoire

And it's not just me saying this, but virtually all medical experts, scientists, and health agencies (e.g. CDC, etc) also say this. — Roger Gregoire

Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. — InPitzotl

Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity. — CDC Glossary

This is Non-Truth #1. ... People's respiratory systems are NOT directly connected to one anther's. — Roger Gregoire

This is an IMPORTANT distinction that changes the mathematics involved in calculating probabilities and risk. — Roger Gregoire

There was no "speculation" on my part. You were the one that said it was "based on breaking vectors", not me. — Roger Gregoire

Well, there is indeed a real protective effect demonstrated by this program based on breaking vectors. — InPitzotl

This is not what creates the "protective effect" of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire

If this were true, then we could simply replace these healthy immune people with statues or rocks, — Roger Gregoire

But herd immunity does not work that way. — Roger Gregoire

Your program only shows the protective effects of social distancing, not herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire

Community immunity: A situation in which a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease (through vaccination and/or prior illness) to make its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are offered some protection because the disease has little opportunity to spread within the community. Also known as herd immunity. — CDC Glossary

if your program is indeed based on "breaking vectors", then it is based on "social distancing" which is just the opposite of herd immunity. — Roger Gregoire

Please describe, or give an illustration (like my mosquito illustration) on how "breaking vectors" magically creates a "protective effect". You will see that it actually makes things worse. If you remove healthy people far away from vulnerable people, vulnerable people die faster, are less protected. — Roger Gregoire

Imagine 10 people inside a room with 10 mosquitos flying about. Further imagine that 0 (none) of these people are healthy (a mosquito bite does not bother them) and all 10 people are vulnerable, whereas a mosquito bite would result in a severe reaction and certain death. So the odds of a vulnerable person dying from a mosquito bite in this scenario is 100% (10 mosquitos / 10 total people) which equals 10 dead people. — Roger Gregoire

#include <random>
#include <iostream>

struct Person {
    unsigned int times_bit;
    Person() : times_bit(0) {}
};


int main() {
    std::mt19937 rng;
    std::uniform_int_distribution<unsigned> bite(0, 9);
    unsigned times_all_bit = 0;
    unsigned each_bit[10] = {0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0};
    unsigned cumulative_mortality = 0;
    for (unsigned n=0; n<10000; ++n)
    {
        // Nobody bit yet this run
        Person people[10];
        // 10 mosquitos bite
        for (unsigned mosquito=0; mosquito<10; ++mosquito)
        {
            ++people[bite(rng)].times_bit;
        }
        // Count the dead this round
        unsigned num_dead=0;
        for (unsigned p=0; p<10; ++p)
        {
            if (people[p].times_bit>0) {
                ++num_dead;
            }
        }
        // Add to times_all_bit if everyone was bit
        if (num_dead==10) ++times_all_bit;
        // Add number dead to cumulative mortality
        cumulative_mortality += num_dead;
        // Accumulate number of times each person was bit
        for (unsigned e=0; e<10; ++e)
           if (people[e].times_bit>0) ++each_bit[e];
    }
    std::cout << "Out of 10000 runs, everyone was bit in " << times_all_bit << ".\n";
    std::cout << "Average deaths per round is " << (cumulative_mortality/10000.0) << ".\n";
    std::cout << "Breakdown of each bit:\n";
    for (unsigned p=0; p<10; ++p)
    {
        std::cout << " person " << (p+1) << " bit in " << each_bit[p] << " runs\n";
    }
}

Out of 10000 runs, everyone was bit in 3.
Average deaths per round is 6.5107.
Breakdown of each bit:
 person 1 bit in 6593 runs
 person 2 bit in 6415 runs
 person 3 bit in 6548 runs
 person 4 bit in 6491 runs
 person 5 bit in 6446 runs
 person 6 bit in 6533 runs
 person 7 bit in 6594 runs
 person 8 bit in 6491 runs
 person 9 bit in 6494 runs
 person 10 bit in 6502 runs

People with healthy immune systems develop antibodies, which in most cases, provides better protection than does vaccination. — Roger Gregoire

I challenge you to prove me wrong. — Roger Gregoire

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — Hitchen's razor

...wow. — Roger Gregoire

HERE ARE MY SPECIFIC WORDS below. — Roger Gregoire

...your theory seems to assume that the vast majority of viruses in an environment find themselves inside human bodies in 7 days. I question that assumption. — InPitzotl

...an irrelevant red herring. — Roger Gregoire

Assuming Joe, John and the pie are all together in the same environment (e.g. John's kitchen). -- For every slice of the pie that Joe eats, means that there is one less slice that John can eat. — Roger Gregoire

Firstly, you seem to be fabricating a delusional interpretation of my words. — Roger Gregoire

And secondly, this is not necessarily ridiculous — Roger Gregoire

...your theory seems to assume that the vast majority of viruses in an environment find themselves inside human bodies in 7 days. I question that assumption. — InPitzotl

...an irrelevant red herring. — Roger Gregoire

And secondly, this is not necessarily ridiculous (i.e. thousands of people drinking milk could cause a milk shortage, thereby resulting in no milk in your fridge). — Roger Gregoire

Assuming Joe, John and the pie are all together in the same environment (e.g. John's kitchen). -- For every slice of the pie that Joe eats, means that there is one less slice that John can eat. — Roger Gregoire

Of course you are (see a). — Bartricks

And what are you following when you reason, if not some kind of directive? — Bartricks

As for b, I have my reasons. — Bartricks

Are you slow? The. Imperatives. Of. Reason. See argument above. — Bartricks

If you 'ought' to draw the conclusion, then you are bid draw it - that's what the oughtness 'is'. — Bartricks

The imperatives of Reason are imperatives (hence the name). — Bartricks

So you are denying that you ought to draw the conclusion of a valid argument? — Bartricks

And what are you following when you reason, if not some kind of directive? — Bartricks

But I am clearly referring to the imperatives themselves. — Bartricks

Sorry, but it did. You accept, I take it, that I did what I did: I, a mind, issued an instruction to you. — Bartricks

As for your example, it's an example of something else. — Bartricks

For what you describe is a visual experience causing in you a belief, without any inferential activity on your part. — Bartricks

Here's a law of Bartricks: if you have money, give me money.. — Bartricks

Well, clearly one of the things he wants is for us to do and believe things, hence the instructions of Reason exist. — Bartricks

As for it being pointless for him to think - I don't see how you get to that conclusion. — Bartricks

Yes it can. See above. I am not bound by what I say, but I can nevertheless tell people about myself. Likewise for Reason. Think it through!! — Bartricks

If there are laws of Reason, then there is a mind whose laws they are — Bartricks

The mind whose laws are the laws of Reason is omniscient — Bartricks

The mind whose instructions and commands constitute the laws of Reason would not be bound by those laws, as they have the power over their content. — Bartricks

InPitzotl, can you grasp this concept? Yes or No? — Roger Gregoire

I'm glad you were honest enough to end with this paragraph and not continue to falsely equate all the viruses in mankind with this one virus that we call covid-19. — Roger Gregoire

Herd immunity has been natures way of protecting mankind from all these viruses throughout history. — Roger Gregoire

We are intentionally shielding our healthy population from protecting our vulnerable population. — Roger Gregoire

Never in the history of mankind have we did this, and is why we are losing this battle with covid.