>>16956054
Yes

here's the problem, the answer can't be 1, because with infinite speed it could have spun an extra time, so it would be 2, but it can't be 2 because then it would spin again and be 3, but then it would spin again back to 1 and so on,

no matter what number we say it landed on it could have spun an extra time during those 10 minutes, therefore could we say the wheel landed on all 3 sides?

>>16956054
I wouldn't know but I must imagine you happy.

>>16956087
the actual problem is that you use infinity as a value while it isn't. your question is invalid and proof you don't understand infinity

>>16956087
Congratulations. You have discovered the concept of a divergent series.

To take your shitpost seriously for a moment, this isn't all that different from Grandi's series (1-1+1-1...). This series oscillates between 1 and 0. So instead of spinning a triangular wheel, it's more like asking what face a coin would land on if flipped infinitely. The answer is it doesn't. And that is the same answer as with your scenario.

For completeness:
Your series could be mathematically described as either:
1+(1+1-2...)
Or:
1+(n mod 3) as n approaches infinity.

INFINITY ISNT A NUMBER FUCKNUTS

>>16956054
No real answer since, infinity is unlimited and limiting with the 10 mins contradicts it and therefore it would make no sense in the first place

>>16956054
1

File: FB_IMG_1776122834097.jpg (50.9 KB)

50.9 KB JPG

>>16956087
This is correct

>>16956104
>>16956777
Infinity is an amount and numbers are amounts

>>16956722
>The answer is it doesn't. And that is the same answer as with your scenario.
Infinite series can easily stop. Anon's does so after ten minutes. There must then be an answer. Another that stops is (...-3, -2, -1, 0).

Pic related is another issue.

All of these prove that Classical Finitism is objectively true.

>>16958256
>Infinite series can easily stop.
False by definition.

>>16958267
Does (...-3, -2, -1, 0) stop?

I was thinking of calculating the maximum proton speed relative to light. Imagine the glow of the block.

>>16958267
some infinities are smaller than others

>>16958273
Syntax error. The correct way to write that series is (0,-1,-2,-3...). Which, as you can see, does not stop.

>>16958291
That does not mean what you think it means.

Just add infinity/infinite/infinitely to the spam filter already

>>16958312
>Syntax error. The correct way to write that series is (0,-1,-2,-3...).
You seem to be trying to say "they either have to have no beginning or no ending and those are the same since we can look at the inverse", but you can make them with both a beginning and an ending, such as (3, 3.1, 3.14...π).

>>16958330
You are referring to a convergent series. That's not the series "ending."

>>16958346
It is. It ends at π.

You can even do (1...2) and include everything in between. Listing out infinite series of numbers that begin, end, both, or neither is simple.

>>16958368
if you were to take 1 second to look at every element of the series (1, ..., 2), then it would take an infinite time, but there would be an end. if you were to take all the infinite numbers instantly, then it would take instant time. Please pardon the brain-cel, he's still trying to count by threes and has to spend time looking at every number individually.

>>16958256
>Infinite series can easily stop.
Then the question would be "If I'm pushing and rotating a 3 sided wheel towards positive infinity x-coordinate...", not "infinitely fast". With infinite speed the answer became undefined in a single moment, it doesn't matter if you stop after this or not, the answer stays undefined.

File: fig121.gif (12.6 KB)

12.6 KB GIF

>>16958773
>With infinite speed the answer became undefined in a single moment, it doesn't matter if you stop after this or not, the answer stays undefined.
Of course - and this demonstrates the truth of Finitism. It amounts to saying that such a scenario is logically impossible. Anything with actual infinities ultimately will be, since actual infinities are themselves logically impossible.