A simple age-old Debate; Quantity vs Quality.

The flaw in the proof is that it is circular and assumes God is equal to 1 000 000 people in order to prove that God is equal to 1 000 000 people. It isn't a proof at all, just a long, redundant way of stating an assumption.

The other flaw with the proof is that it is trying to prove a global statement by a specific example. For instance, I could say:

For all n, n + 1 = 2. Take the case n = 1:

n + 1 = 1 + 1 = 2. QED.

If you assume that GOD is the ultimate quality and is worth 1,000,000 people,,then 2,000,000 people provite a better quality than GOD

Technically,,you can always find a quantity that will be EQUAL or that will EXCEED the given quality.

GOD is flawless and immortal.
IF you want to put god in equation, it would equal OO

God was just an example to show the ULTIMATE level of quality

IF you want to put god in equation, it would equal OO

There are different levels of infinity.

Some are higher than others,,for example,,

SET of INTEGERS = SET of RATIONAL numbers
SET of IRRATIONAL numbers > SET of INTEGERS

If you assume that GOD is the ultimate quality and is worth 1,000,000 people,,then 2,000,000 people provite a better quality than GOD

Technically,,you can always find a quantity that will be EQUAL or that will EXCEED the given quality.

But in your example, quantity doesn't exceed quality; it just exceeds another quantity. Trying to prove a point with baseless assumptions will get you nowhere.

Yeah, what I was saying was that all you did in your example was you defined GOD in terms of PEOPLE. You said GOD equals 1 000 000 people. 1 000 001 > 1 000 000, therefore quantity > quality. Disregarding the fact that you are trying to prove something by example, it's not a proof because you assume what you are trying to prove, and then saying. I.e. you assume that GOD is less than a set number of people, and then you 'prove' that a set amount of people are greater then GOD.

It is essentially equivalent to this proof:

Theorem: x = 2
Assuming x is an integer strictly greater then 1 and strictly less then 3, x is equal to 2.

Your assume what you are trying to prove.

You cannot assume the ultimate quality is equal to a quantity of less valuable quality, simply because you are assuming the result of your 'proof'. In other words, you are assuming that quantity is greater then quality in order to prove that quantity is greater then quality. It is a circular argument.

you are assuming that quantity is greater then quality in order to prove that quantity is greater then quality. It is a circular argument.

lol the debate is really on now,,

Try to make the same argument where quality is greater than quantity.

Alright, assume the ultimate quality to be of greater value then any multiple of lesser quality objects. Therefore quality > quantity.

That's the short version. If you want me to frame it as you did:

In MATH,,quality will win out.  Here is the proof:

1) Let PERSON < GOD
2) Let GOD = PERSON*k + 1, where k is any integer from 0...?, representing any number of people in that range

Now let's assume that we have 1,000,000 PERSON,,then:

Total value of PERSONS = 1 000 000
God = PERSON * 1 000 000 + 1

The value of GOD is 1 000 001

1 000 001 > 1 000 000

Therefore, quality > quantity. Our equations work out.


And this isn't a debate. It's an irrefutable fact that your 'mathematical' proof is false, and you cannot debate facts.

ah,,the old infinity + 1 trick

so technically I think we arrived at this conclusion

What is better:

n things of 1 quality,,or 1 thing of n quality

ah,,the old infinity + 1 trick

so technically I think we arrived at this conclusion

What is better:

n things of 1 quality,,or 1 thing of n quality

And that brings us full circle: It depends on the situation.

ah,,the old infinity + 1 trick

so technically I think we arrived at this conclusion

What is better:

n things of 1 quality,,or 1 thing of n quality

And that brings us full circle: It depends on the situation.

AAAAwwwww,,does it mean we have to start all over?

It seems we have reached an impact. True, the quality and quality is depending the situation.
And now we add another equation to the debate :

The try factor-Energy needed.

Is it more enery-consuming to work for a higher quality or a higher quantity; and which will pay off more than another?

...

It depends on the situation. <_<

Zypher is dead on. It depends on the situation.

Zypher is dead on. It depends on the situation.

I also kinda lost the whole debate right when the algebra started.

But anyway, a billion against one, pretty obvious who will lose right? But then the battle of thermolpai (the battle 300 is based off of) 300 Spartans vs. 1000(?) Persians. Who won there? Anyway, it definetly depends on the situation.

The Persians won.

In any case, I prefer quality in pretty much any situation. Where one thing of quality is of equal or even slightly less worth to multiple things of a lower quality, I would pretty much always go with the one thing of quality. For instance, I would rather have one car that went 10 miles/gallon then 10 cars that went 1 miles / gallon.

Okay, Debate Finished.