VXZD_ZD

you randomly disagree with me using a comment that is barely coherent and at most proves what I said, and then I'm the troll? Internet is making people crazy

I have read both your comments, and in both of them i can't understand your point, all you're saying just proves my point, the magic books are the "tools" that you talked about in your analogy, not the stats, i made that clear when i said that the stats wouldn't affect his income, because the only ways he has to kill enemies is by using Magic, not strength I really don't know what you are trying to say

Btw why are you ignoring the fact that i called you out on not knowing what the travelling salesman problem actually is?

YOU don't understand what praticality means, if you want to argue that you do, then explain how praticality turns something infinite, also, don't try to act like that wasn't you said, you directly stated that anything sufficiently massive is the same as infinite

Yes, rabiddoughnuts, i'm so pressed up, not you that had to go agaisn't the dictionary and try to shit on google just to prove your point that you know that is wrong, or the fact that you're repeatedly using caps. You're an joke

Did you just try to shit on me for googling something? Really? You can't make it more clear that you're a cynical person that knows that you are wrong but simply can't accept it, you literally refuses to hear the fucking dictionary and still manages to insult me calling me dumb, that's the dunning kruger effect in action, peak redditor behavior

Rabiddoughnuts, i can assure you that if you ask any physicist, engineer, mathematician, or any person with a brain, they will know the meaning of infinity in the dictionary

And while we're at it, saying that we 'couldn’t write it out because it would take longer than the universe has existed' is just proving my point—if it can take any amount of time, even an impossibly long one, it’s still finite. Infinity doesn’t care about time or difficulty; it’s simply endless. So no, we’re not talking about something 'practically infinite,' we’re talking about something huge but quantifiable. Also, just because some scientists use the term 'practically infinite' to simplify problems for real-world applications doesn’t mean they actually believe it’s infinite. It’s a shorthand for 'too large to matter in this context,' not a literal statement. So, you're confusing convenience with conceptual truth, and honestly, that’s a pretty shaky foundation for an argument.

Oh boy, here we go again with the assumptions. I’m not googling anything to understand what we’re talking about here—these are pretty basic concepts, honestly. You keep falling back on this 'practically infinite' idea, which, sure, is a thing people say when numbers are incomprehensibly large, but it doesn't change the fact that massive and infinite are different concepts. In scientific or academic settings, they know that too. It's not about pretending a massive number is infinite because it’s hard to calculate; it’s about knowing that no matter how complex or large a number is, if it has a limit, it’s not infinite. Let’s take a second to really clarify. When you say, 'It would take longer than the universe has existed to calculate,' you’re talking about a logistical problem, not a conceptual one. Just because it’s hard to calculate doesn't make it infinite. It's like saying the number of grains of sand on a beach is practically infinite because we can't count them all—but we all know there's still a definite number, even if it’s absurdly huge. And saying that scientists, engineers, and physicists agree on 'practically infinite' is exactly that—practicality. It’s not about whether something actually is infinite. They know the difference between massive and infinite, and if you ask any of them in a theoretical discussion, they’ll tell you the same thing: massive numbers, even when astronomically large, are not actually infinite. You’re mixing up practical shorthand with conceptual understanding. Yes, there comes a point where people stop caring about the exact number because it’s irrelevant to daily applications. That doesn’t make it infinite; it just makes it too big to worry about for most uses. And if you’re talking about the distinction not being worthwhile in a 'practical sense,' cool, but we’re having a theoretical discussion about what infinity is, not how engineers simplify problems in the real world. So sorry, but I’m sticking to what the actual definitions are, not what’s convenient to say in practice.