/lit/ - Literature

>>10772999
A calculus textbook

>>10772999
duh.

Anaximander

>>10773034
He was truly a man of infinite jest....

>>10773031
>>10773035
Any specific works?

>>10773228 meant for >>10773120

The only real answer is Georg Cantor; but that's some real math theory.

>>10773325
Are you talking about his mathematics specifically, or his philosophy relating to infinity?

As much as his mathematics is respected, I feel like I've only ever seen his "philosophy" behind it dismissed as crazy spiritual ramblings.

>>10773325
Conceptually-wise it's mind-blowing; proof-wise it isn't awe-inspiring.

>>10773421
very bad english here i hope you are not a writer anon, you’re low verbal iq and its really obvious

>>10773409
Most positive statements about infinity sound like crazy spiritual ramblings at their heart. It's playing with an idea that is literally incomprehensible by definition.

>>10773441
Nah, I'm a native to Spanish. My second language is French, then comes Portuguese and then English. Sorry for the bad Englando.

>>10773451
I'm not sure I agree. Cantor's proofs like showing the bijection from rationals to naturals or the uncountability of the reals are straightforward proofs in a mathematical sense that really are grounded in basic mathematical induction, and they avoid getting really heady about "infinity" while still making ground-breaking observations.

>>10773501
t'inquiète frérot

>>10773567
I was probably unclear, to me his mathematical proofs are not positive statements. That comes when you take the extra step to try and use the proof as a premise to make inter/extrapolations about the nature of infinity itself.

>>10773613
I can agree with this.

>>10772999
"Your mom's weight" by Euclid

>>10773613
Thanks for clearing that up. Can you explain what you mean when you said infinity is "literally incomprehensible by definition"?

I think countably infinite sets seem pretty comprehensible, if not "in their entirety" then in a "generalized" sense, like defining it by a function in terms of naturals. But going on to uncountable sets, I'd say yeah, those seem pretty fucking weird and incomprehensible.

>>10772999

>>10773034
*slaps your gf's ass*

>>10773676

I'm a brainlet can someone tell me if the idea of nothing included in infinity or separate from it?

>>10773676

>>10772999
kek

>>10773026
/thread

Bonus points if its Lebesgue Integration.

>>10773026
>>10774274
Nah famalam, "infinity" or concepts related to it (supremum, infinum, limits) are already so entrenched in the foundations of calculus (no matter which definition of the integral you choose) that learning about "infinity" from these would be circular. Hell, when formulating the Lebesgue integral most textbooks just outright define what infinity•0 and infinity+C should be, with the only justification for these definitions being that those rules are based on limiting processes of convergent sequences (which themselves are couched in the language of infinity).

>>10772999
>>>/his/