Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Context still matters, yes.But why are we taking author's intention into relevance of our understanding? Doing it can lead to various interpretations.
Countless first definition is “too many to count”, and then in contextual instances, it could be synonymously with “infinite” or anything else.
When examining this within a mathematical framework, a countless number can always be treated as finite, particularly in rare cases where it exhibits an infinitely increasing pattern.
I would not give it a possibly rating at all. We have 2B tier for this reason, in fact, it could arguably belong to the 2-C tier, with a possibility of being even higher, around 2-B.
You are simply equating it to "possibly 2-A" solely because authors often convey the notion of “infinite” is a presumption. I don't think it's entirely wrong, we can expand any statements to its maximum interpretation, but we have no obligations for this. You still did not even take into consideration that maybe the whole statement is also metaphorical? For example, an author might describe a mountain range as stretching endlessly, but this doesn't necessarily mean the range is infinite—it's just a way of emphasizing its vastness.
Authors frequently employ literary techniques such as hyperbole, metaphor, and symbolism to enrich their writing. Determining the author's intent is a complex undertaking that involves more than assuming specific words or concepts are always intended to be infinite. Caution is advised against making such assumptions unless the context explicitly conveys the concept of infinity.
Which I say "possibly". Not even "likely", but only "possibly".Ya, so we simply assume at its minimum, not at its maximum – my main point. We don't simply over-excessively interpret something when the context itself conveys something else or simply is not supported by available sources.
It is like, reading between lines. But I suppose, you got my point.
It is, since you are simply over interpreting something because of “possibility”. I'm saying, this one can be possible.What level of infinity they use is irrelevant to what I am talking about.
And what I am saying is, it's irrelevant to our scaling. We scale based on our understanding, not what the author wanted.The subject is the intent on if they mean it as finite or infinite due to the ambiguity of the words they use. The level of infinity is irrelevant in this.
Because one has fewer assumptions, and others requires more evidence to be literal. That's where “lowball and highball” comes.Both have a probability of being correct, so why only assume one is while both are just as probabilistic as each other?
I am not arguing for those two. I am arguing for countless.Vague usages of "endless"/"limitless" fall under this ambiguity due to their double-meanings without more context.
Refer to my rest of my post.Both have a probability of being the correct interpretation, so why only list one of them if both have a probability of being correct?
I second this.endless / limitless should at least be a possibly infinite, because infinity does not have an end. For countless it could just be a very large finite amount, so 2-B is fine without context
I would say things that are described as "seemingly limitless/endless" wouldn't have the "possibly infinite".endless / limitless should at least be a possibly infinite, because infinity does not have an end. For countless it could just be a very large finite amount, so 2-B is fine without context