Clarifying Infinity

[TheVat]

Erm, isn't "it exposes the absurdity of extrapolating from the quantum level to the macro" pretty much what I meant by saying it isn't to be taken literally? Anyway, I agree with your description, so I'm not sure how I gave the impression that I didn't. When people say "don't take it literally," this can mean that the literal interpretation is meant to produce an absurdity.

My favorite variant is Schrodinger's Litter Box, which may or may not need cleaning. If you never check on it, it will never definitely fill up and stink.

I've also seen an ad, in California, for Schrodinger's Kennel, which had some slogan about not knowing if your pet has survived its stay until you come to pick it up.

I digress.

[Reg_Prescott]

My favorite variant is Schrodinger's Litter Box, which may or may not need cleaning. If you never check on it, it will never definitely fill up and stink.

I've also seen an ad, in California, for Schrodinger's Kennel, which had some slogan about not knowing if your pet has survived its stay until you come to pick it up.

I digress.

Tee hee! :-)

[Brent696]

>>>>>>* If I'm sometimes snarky or sharp (rude? eye of beholder) it's because this is an online forum and not the Oxford debating society. A little give and take is within the rules. I like free speech and would never tell you not to post here. I might make uncomplimentary remarks about your work but whenever I speak I speak only for myself.

BIV on the other hand is a moderator, and what he says goes.<<<<<<<

Eye of the beholder, tell that to the smoldering sockets of my eyeballs as the last bits of aqueous humor boils away.

I know BIV is the big dog, but when people show an excessive amount of vitriol at my boorish vocabulary, his teeth tend to be latched to my ankle as I try desperately to scurry towards the nearest fence.

I think BIV tends toward order, first towards the ideals of the forum/thread and then towards the civility involved. I admit, I am a wild card, but I think he is mostly tolerant of me as long as people are not seeming getting upset, apparently I can stretch emotions as well as minds.

So to the subject at hand, clarifying infinity, my first goal is the clearly separate Infinity from its finite counterparts as they have had their attributes intermingled by probabilities. To that I add the quote,

""""The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. F. Scott Fitzgerald
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/f_sc ... ald_100572"""""

[Reg_Prescott]

Mesh wish BiV and you mesh wish me, shucker.

Whoopsh, time for bed. Burp!

[someguy1]

So to the subject at hand, clarifying infinity, my first goal is the clearly separate Infinity from its finite counterparts as they have had their attributes intermingled by probabilities. To that I add the quote,

I read your interesting post and have a bunch of things to do today, will respond later this afternoon.

[someguy1]

So am I gingerly pulling the chair back from the table to sit back down, last time I had food thrown in my face and was told I didn't belong. Now are you inviting me back, I just want BIV to take note, this really was a long dead thread ...

Ok I'm back from my errands, usual inexplicable mass of traffic going 20mph on a freeway built for 80. Where are they all going in the middle of the day? You know when they build a freeway, they don't alleviate any traffic. All that happens is that the suburbs move much further out and and endless traffic jam just gets longer and wider.

@Brent696 I like your poems. I wonder why you've chosen this particular site.

Ok my thoughts on the interesting points you raised, some of which I think I can definitively answer.

>>>>>>>It's not all that bad. You're raising a good point. I have this question in my own mind. We do have this wonderful theory of the infinite going back to Cantor, and frankly back to Archimedes and Eudoxus.<<<<<

May I ask you why you use a custom quoting style of your own, when the Quote function works perfectly well on this forum?

"Theory" is ok with me, I figure if I am truly right, we will one day see it or we will one day will not, I might even be both right and wrong. But I do have my own views and may or may not agree with these guys.

Ah. You are using "theory" the way people sometimes argue against evolution. "It's only a theory." As if "Gravity is only a theory."

This is a misunderstanding of how scientists use the word theory. A scientific theory is an organized body of knowledge in a particular area. So a math major might study "Group theory," or "the theory of polynomial equations." It just means there's a body of theory and practice around a certain professional area of study.

So in fact Cantor's theory of infinite sets would be valid even if physical infinity were falsified totally. You think Cantor's theory of the infinite is something that can be true or false. But it's not. It's a really interesting and brilliant set of ideas that's served as an organizing principle for most of twentieth century math. It couldn't be falsified. It's just a way of thinking about things. It could come into style (as it did a century ago) or it could go out of style. But it could never be wrong. It's just a self-consistent set of ideas that mathematicians have found to be beautiful and interesting. Those are the only criteria.

Whether physicists use a particular piece of math to get some cool lab results is all well and good, but it's not why mathematicians do math. If some piece of math turns out to have nothing to do with the real world, mathematicians don't care in the least.

You might get some insight by mentally separating math and physics. Mathematicians do all kinds of crazy things. Some of it turns out to be useful in the world, often centuries or even millennia after mathematicians first started caring about it. Some math has no known use in the real world. Infinitary set theory being a prime example.

Aren't physicists those guys who are trying to tell us matter is traveling back in time, no, no, don't believe anything they tell you, next they will be telling us a cat can be both dead and alive, In the REAL? world my girl friend is either pregnant or she's not, don't go messing around with my head. (Jokes)

I fear your jokes have too much truth in them. I wonder if you are failing to separate the achievements of science with some of the popularized accounts that people are confused about. I think I read that in quantum electrodynamics (the thing Feynman got his Nobel for) they made a prediction that was verified in the laboratory to 12 decimal places. That's not nothing! It means that the most abstract, advanced mathematical physics that nobody really understands the "meaning" of, matches the real world to an incredible degree of approximation.

You have to give that human achievement some respect. It goes back to people like Archimedes, who used math-thinking to figure out the world.

Of course Schrödinger came out with his cat story to make a point about the collapse of the wave function, and now if there's one thing the person on the street knows about quantum theory, it's Schrödinger's cat. But really, if you want to understand some physics, better to study the Schrödinger equation and not Schrödinger's cat. Because Schrödinger's cat is not a physics argument, it's a popularization of a physics argument, so it loses all subtlety, technical detail, and context.

You can always find some physicist saying some crazy stuff at a Ted talk or in a popularized book. So we do always need to work to separate out the actual achievements of science, and the technical work that goes into those achievements; from all the silly stuff people say about those achievements. You can see this, yes?

It SEEMS, once physicists opened the door of "probabilities", not they can do damn well whatever the hell they please with their math.

If I'm understanding your reference, you must be speaking about people like Boltzmann, who showed that the world can be understood through the statistical properties of atoms. Again, this approach has been extremely successful in understanding the world around us. You don't have to personally like the idea. You do have to respect the power of the explanation as a conceptual structure and a predictor of what we see in the world.

I don't see why you think physicists can do what the hell they please. Physicists are constrained by (1) the requirement to put together a logically coherent theory; and (2) their theory must accurately predict the results of experiments designed to probe and challenge their theory.

Physicists are HIGHLY constrained. It's mathematicians who are unconstrained. Beauty and interestingness, that's all that matters. Mathematicians are not constrained by the real world. Physicists are.

But once Mathematicians opened the door to statistics and game theory, now they also can do whatever the hell they want with their math.

Now you're complaining that mathematicians can do whatever they want. But that's inherent to the field of math. Mathematicians do math, not physics. It's true that SOME mathematicians do math that has the real world in mind. But many, actually most professional mathematicians do not work in applied fields at all. So you are complaining that the Pope is Catholic. It's a requirement of the job. Mathematicians are ALWAYS free to do whatever makes sense in the context of their work, and applications to the real world are rarely part of it.

Please understand this distinction. If you want to complain that physicists shouldn't use statistical methods, then fine, go ahead and make your argument. But why shouldn't mathematicians study anything they want? That's what they do!

Also I don't get your remark about game theory. It's the economists who jumped onto game theory, not the physicists.

Now that's just a layman's view,

That's fair. I hope that you are taking my point of distinguishing math from physics.

I'm the visual thinker, my wife is the accountant and she has the talent for making numbers grew, not me. But Infinities, as I understand how they are used in conjunction with universal realities, exist on paper as it were and potentially.

This sentence is a little murky. First, I have no idea what "universal realities" means. What if I deny there is any such thing? You can't prove otherwise. Nobody knows if there are any universal realities, or what that would even mean.

Exist on paper? What does that mean? It seems to me that a universal reality would be independent of human beings evolving and inventing paper. What exists on paper is historically contingent. What "exists on paper" is the opposite of a "universal reality." Wouldn't you agree?

I hope you can see that this sentence you wrote is hopelessly vague.

And when you say that "infinities are used in conjunction with universal realities," I have to tell you that this phrase does not refer to ANYTHING I can make any sense of no matter how generous I try to be in my interpretation.

So if I formerly called something like this word salad, and that was pejorative, then I apologize. But what I would say instead is that it's totally incoherent. "infinities are used in conjunction with universal realities" Doesn't mean anything. Can you challenge yourself to ground your vague thought in things that are factually true? Give an example of an infinity used in conjunction with a universal reality.

Do you regard my criticisms as fair? Is "incoherent" a more polite word than "word salad?" Can you take my remarks not as a personal attack, but rather as helpful pointers to ways in which you can strive to be more clear in your thinking and exposition. Can you live with that?

In math class we learned that multiplying 4 or 8 times infinity left only infinity, but that is never a reality, it simply describes a "relationship" between infinity and finite math.

Is it possible that your vague recollections of someone who told you something in high school or college may not be the way professionals think about the subject? And that if you took the time, you could sit down and learn exactly how these matters are sorted out by mathematicians?

What do you mean it's "never a reality?" Who told you that? Was it a high school teacher making an offhand remark? You know, we all have limits to our knowledge. But we should realize we have these limits. You say you were taught "in class" about something. Well ok. Do you think that's the last word on the subject? Aren't you aware that at every level of teaching, we lie by simplification in order to teach hard concepts. Then when the student goes further, they unlearn the previous lies and learn new ones. Don't you know this??

Your recollection of some class should not be taken by you as the final word on how professionals think about things. And if you studied more you'd develop more sophisticated perspectives yourself. It's just a matter of learning. Not denying everything you haven't learned about yet just because you "learned something in class."

Doesn't most of life involve unlearning everything we learned in class?

In odds, probabilities, and the like, I can see quotients of infinity being used to re-contextualize abstracts.

Uh-oh.

(OK that last sentence was even hard for me,

Ok good, self-awareness. So when I say "word salad" or "incoherent" I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm asking you to work harder to think and write clearly.

it may not be the exact language mathematicians use but I always suppose if you think about it, you can grasp what I mean assuming I'm close enough)

Sometimes I can and sometimes I can't. Using infinities as part of absolute realities or whatever from above, I really have no idea what you mean. In this case, quotients of infinities, do you mean limits in calculus? The mysterious limit of the difference quotient that Newton used to prove his remarkable law of universal gravitation? That then took mathematicians another 200 years to properly explain? Do you mean dy/dx?

Or do you mean something else? Like, the probability that a dart thrown randomly at the unit interval has a 1/2 chance of landing between 0 and 1/2. We have one uncountable infinity inside another, yet we can formalize a mathematical theory to make what's intuitively true, also be logically true? That's a pretty good achievement of math, wouldn't you say?

So no, I don't know what you mean here, but at least I can think of a couple of sensible interpretations. But feel free to clarify.

But ultimately and absolutely, such infinities do not and cannot exist as in physical reality.

That's a metaphysical claim. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has any idea whether that's true.

For example, a potential infinite number of even numbers. as a potential this is a reality within a potential equation, but it is never a reality in the physical (real) world.

Sure. Totally agreed. But it's simpler than that. Take the counting numbers themselves. A child has an intuition of them. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, .... They never end. Even children play the game, "Name the highest number," and they always figure out, "Whatever number you say, plus 1!!!!"

So we have an intuition of the infinitude of the counting numbers, and that intuition is the start of infinitary math.

But are there infinitely many of anything in the real world? There's no evidence there is and plenty there's not. So on the one hand we have this abstract idea about an infinitude of counting numbers; and I have my observations of the physical world in which there are (as far as we know) no actual infinitudes.

So you know, why is this bothering you so much? After all I have a perfectly clear visualization of a purple flying elephant. Yet there are no such things in the real world. So every person past the age of 4 knows that there is the REAL world, and the world of MAKE BELIEVE.

So there are infinitely many counting numbers, which have some sort of abstract mental existence; and there are manifestly NOT infinitely many of anything in the real world.

I perfectly well stipulate to this.

This Universe, the same universe that is manifesting finite attributes from top to bottom, from the life of a fruit fly to the death of our sun to the end of the expansion and final collapse, I see finite attributes reigning. And this might be a bit of logic, but if everything within this universe is finite, then the universe itself, as the parent so to speak, is also finite.

Of course nobody knows for sure. But I believe the world is finite. And contemporary physics says the world is finite. Again, separating actual physics that's been proved in the lab, as opposed to celebrity physicists selling popularized books.

So now I get that it is the heart of your argument to claim that the world is finite.

But I agree with you entirely. I hope you understand that.

I also happen to enjoy learning about mathematical infinity. I make no ontological claims for it. But then again, I make no ontological claims for 1 + 1 = 2 either. The math is interesting on its own terms, without reference to the real world.

I hope this is clear. I never make any ontological claims for math. I make none for the mathematical theory of infinity. However, insofar as anyone does speak about infinity, they at least have to acknowledge the work that's been done on the subject. Because math, even crazy math -- ESPECIALLY crazy math -- does in fact have a funny way of turning out to be useful, decades or centuries or even millennia down the road. So even if you don't believe in physical infinity, it doesn't hurt to know a little about mathematical infinity.

This finitude is not abstract, the very conditions of existence depend upon the time and spatial dimensions. Math would not be superior to time and space but rather as they are constants which define the universe, they provide the underlying structure from which math is derived.

No. Math is not physics. Math is inspired by the real world, just as my vision of a purple flying elephant is inspired by aspects of the real world. But just like my imagination, math is not constrained by the real world.

Math says NOTHING about time or space.

I think once you get that you will be enlightened. Or at the very least, you'll take your wrath out on the physicists and leave us poor mathematicians alone! We are not responsible for what those crazy physicists do!!

Thus any True Infinity, one that might actually exist, must exist transcendent to this universe.

Yeah, I can go along with that.

What help in understanding this transcendent reality is when we stop thinking of the universe as an addition, as if creation truly added something, but rather in the infinity of nothing, nothingness was squeezed down by imposed limitations.

Incoherent. Can you see that? Much of your post is coherent so I know you can see the difference. If this sentence is important to you, can you please help me out and give an example or two of what you're talking about?

IOWs, the universe would be happening all at once, but when the speed was restricted to the speed of light, that allowed for a separation of time units. The limitation of the speed of light allows and creates time. What I am proposing is upside down from how we normally think of it.

Ok. Frankly I am not qualified to comment on alternate models of physics. I will have been successful if I explained to you that none of this is about math. Maybe others can comment on the physics. I find the finitude of the speed of light very puzzling myself. I've seen all the popularizations and the photons bouncing on the ends of a moving rail car. I have no idea. If all the smart people say time is relative, I believe them. The metaphysical implications haven't really been worked out. Anyway it wasn't Einstein, it was Fitzgerald and Mach and Poincaré and others. These ideas were "in the air." Apparently it's true about the way our world works.

Most of the questions you pose can only be answered when the attribute of Infinity and the attribute of the finite are kept strictly apart, this means that ultimately such potential infinities in math do not really exist.

You get no argument from me. Are you disappointed that we're in complete agreement? According to known physics, mathematical infinities don't exist. On the other hand, physics is based on infinitary math. Some philosophers and physicists are concerned about that. Most physicists I gather never give the issue much thought, or actually believe that the world is the same as the mathematical model. I think they're wrong but in the end it's tedious arguing online with all of them.

But yes, you and I are in agreement on this.

Anyway its late, perhaps this will give you something to think about.

Well it sure did give me something to write about! I do have an interest in the fact that the universe is manifestly finite, and modern physics is based on highly abstract infinitary mathematics that can't possibly be true in any meaningful sense. There's a mystery to be solved.

[Reg_Prescott]

Ah. You are using "theory" the way people sometimes argue against evolution. "It's only a theory." As if "Gravity is only a theory."

Don't mean to be a pest, but the obvious rejoinder from those of a more skeptical bent, or brent, is "which one?"

You do realize there have been quite a few theories of gravity, right?

With no disrespect to Messrs Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein, I'd be inclined to say, "Yes, it's only a theory", Richard Dawkins' protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

I suspect they may have been astute enough to say the same thing too.

Lemme see if I can find my fave Einstein quote about a watch and its inner workings....

[Reg_Prescott]

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavour to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison."

-- You Know Who

bless ya, Albert

[someguy1]

Don't mean to be a pest, but the obvious rejoinder from those of a more skeptical bent, or brent, is "which one?"

If gravity is a bad example then let me just retreat to my actual point. The theory of mathematical infinity is not capable of being falsified, as it is neither true nor false. It's more like chess, an abstract formal game. You would never say, "Oh yeah? The knight doesn't REALLY move like that." Nobody would ever say such a thing because we all understand that chess is a formal game that's a world unto itself. It's sometimes helpful to think of math that way, any time one is tempted to fall into the trap of thinking that "math is wrong" because you don't like some particular physical theory.

Regarding the rest of your remarks I found them a bit off-target. A theory is an organized body of specialized knowledge. You said nothing to counter that nor even to engage with it. Rather you seem to be pointing out that theories are not ultimately "true," which I perfectly well agree with. Although as Isaac Asimov points out, when you say the world is flat you're wrong; and when you say the world is round you're wrong. But saying the world is round is "wrong" in a completely different way than saying the world is flat.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience ... fwrong.htm

Re-reading your post I see you still have no idea what a scientific theory is.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

The definition of a scientific theory (often contracted to theory for the sake of brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4] the opposite of its meaning in science. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Brent696]

Someguy1
>>>>>>>Well it sure did give me something to write about! I do have an interest in the fact that the universe is manifestly finite, and modern physics is based on highly abstract infinitary mathematics that can't possibly be true in any meaningful sense. There's a mystery to be solved.<<<<<<<<

So basically, IF there is an infinite reality, it would exist outside the perimeters of the finite universe and thus outside the bounds of mathematics and physics area of expertise.

They might have math that speculates through probabilities, but their knowledge of an Infinite reality would be as unreal as their math is unempirical.

Which would also mean at the very least this thread would belong in PCF as a philosophical Idealism and there at the very least in Metaphysics and epistemology, quite possibly even theology or religion.

[Reg_Prescott]

Re-reading your post I see you still have no idea what a scientific theory is.

[i]A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested

Repeatedly tested? You mean like string theory?

Don't bother to answer. I know what you'll say: "Pfft! That's not a scientific theory!"

[someguy1]

Don't bother to answer. I know what you'll say ...

Saves me so much wear and tear on my fingertips.

[Reg_Prescott]

Don't bother to answer. I know what you'll say ...

Saves me so much wear and tear on my fingertips.

LOL!

[someguy1]

LOL!

I'd rather be appreciated for my sense of humor than for my philosophy!

[BadgerJelly]

LOL!

I'd rather be appreciated for my sense of humor than for my philosophy!

Strange thing to say. Appeciation of bodily fluids ;P

[someguy1]

Strange thing to say. Appeciation of bodily fluids ;P

Ah ... my humor, not my humours. I get it.

[TheVat]

Some humour is less than vitreous.

[Reg_Prescott]

Some humour is less than vitreous.

My dog has no nose

[TheVat]

I'll keep an eye out for him.

[Reg_Prescott]

I'll keep an eye out for him.

Eye? What eye? You envatted liar!!!

[Brent696]

And the eyes have it

[someguy1]

So basically, IF there is an infinite reality, it would exist outside the perimeters of the finite universe and thus outside the bounds of mathematics and physics area of expertise.

If there's infinity in the physical world, it would involve a new discovery in physics, tomorrow or in a hundred years.

If you want to speculate on theological matters, I can't help you, I'm not an expert. I do wonder why you ignored the substantive points I made in my last post to you

They might have math that speculates through probabilities, but their knowledge of an Infinite reality would be as unreal as their math is unempirical.

You're being incoherent again. In your earlier post you did make some coherent points, but have now evidently thought better of it.

Which would also mean at the very least this thread would belong in PCF as a philosophical Idealism and there at the very least in Metaphysics and epistemology, quite possibly even theology or religion.

Whatever. It seems you'd rather grind some personal ax than have a conversation.

[Reg_Prescott]

HOW COME SCIENTISTS (by and large) ARE SO GODDAMN STUPID!!!!!!!

Whoops, just venting my spleen from another site.

You're not like the rest :-)

[Brent696]

>>>>>>Whatever. It seems you'd rather grind some personal ax than have a conversation.<<<<<<<

I tend to believe in focused conversations, especially as we are trying to "simplify" an understanding of what an infinite reality is or in what way it exists. Now I know I am words as I was the one giving the initial presentation. Approximately 793 words to be exact. Your response, the one were ideally you would be perhaps asking to me for clarification, became a post of 3,347 words. Where you seem to have felt the need to pick at everything, even my jokes. Now since you pasted my whole text I will subtract my 793 words and leaves us with 2,554 words to your response alone, of a minimal rebuttals, and the vast majority simply commentaries from pejorative word salads to purple flying monkeys, literally.

Personally, and this may be my fault so that I should learn never to try to converse with you in any depth, but personally I find those kind of lengthy (I don't even know the word) unproductive to having meaningful conversations.

And so the crux of the matter is that the singular Infinity is beyond math. But it can be approached philosophically by metaphysical meditations upon it's Omni qualities.

And so since you have expressed an absolute determinism for science based math, it really feels like you have disqualified yourself from the conversation. Now perhaps you are right originally, that the OP was really referring to "Infinities" as they give themselves to probabilities.

But as for the singular Infinite, which is transcendent, it would seem to my philosophical mind that math can equate with infinity is two ways. First as 1, where no other number can exist and there is 1 and nothing but, this would be a positive infinity of Being.

And secondly as 0, where there is infinitely nothing, a negative infinity as it were.

From a theological and philosophical standpoint I can compare these two to the universe as I understand how they would relate to one another, but for you to understand me you would have to hold your blow by blow assessments until you were truly able to pierce my paradigm and see the creation and its method of creation as I do.

I don't see you willing to do that, and I have no need to try to convince you, so I really don't want to waste your time and have you getting disagreeable with me. If you respond to this post there are only two distinct points, one, how to have a productive conversation without it turning into a short book, and two, on the science side, how 1 and 0 might reflect infinities.

[Brent696]

>>>>>>>HOW COME SCIENTISTS (by and large) ARE SO GODDAMN STUPID!!!!!!!<<<<<<<

Easy boy, (rubbing your tummy), you have to understand science to them is a god club, it is meant only to beat religious people over the head and really has nothing to do with a search for reason, logic or truth. This about their avatars and how much they are given to fantasy. Breath in, breath out, take a good slow drink of beer, the once again,

Lower your expectations

[DragonFly]

And so the crux of the matter is that the singular Infinity is beyond math.

Supposition/preaching/wishes/hopes to show 'God', but it's just said,… not shown. So, no result.

[Reg_Prescott]

Hey Brent,

This is a little off topic, but seems I'm banned from that Delphi thread. Can't even read it.

Will you please convey the following message: "Gandalf is a wanker"

Thanks :-)

[TheVat]

>>>>>>>HOW COME SCIENTISTS (by and large) ARE SO GODDAMN STUPID!!!!!!!<<<<<<<

Easy boy, (rubbing your tummy), you have to understand science to them is a god club, it is meant only to beat religious people over the head and really has nothing to do with a search for reason, logic or truth. This about their avatars and how much they are given to fantasy. Breath in, breath out, take a good slow drink of beer, the once again,

Lower your expectations

The RCA Victor dog was based on an actual dog. Just sayin.

[Reg_Prescott]

The RCA Victor dog was based on an actual dog. Just sayin.

I still miss you as a chicken.

[TheVat]

All a question of which came first, the chicken or the....

A citation, you asked for?

From The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz, 2nd edition....

The trademark image comes from a painting by English artist Francis Barraud and titled His Master's Voice. It was acquired from the artist in 1899 by the newly formed Gramophone Company and adopted as a trademark by the Gramophone Company's United States affiliate, the Victor Talking Machine Company. According to contemporary Gramophone Company publicity material, the dog, a terrier named Nipper, had originally belonged to Barraud's brother, Mark. When Mark Barraud died, Francis inherited Nipper, with a cylinder phonograph and recordings of Mark's voice. Francis noted the peculiar interest that the dog took in the recorded voice of his late master emanating from the horn, and conceived the idea of committing the scene to canvas.

To keep this on topic I will note that the surface of a wax cylinder is, in one sense, infinite. A bug on its surface can keep walking forever. But only if its walk is circumferential. It has only one degree of unbounded travel. A sphere would have two. NM.