/lit/ - Literature

>>12974618
is he wrong

>>12974618
>Imagine being a woman

>>12974618
numales should be legally restricted from speech

>>12974628
*Chuckle*
Yes, anon, math is quite real.
Now, please, do go back to sleep.

>>12974618
>All animals on the farm are equal, but some are more equal than others.
>t. dick-cheerios eater

>>12974658
the long sleep

but in math im pretty sure some infinities really are bigger than others(math is a meme)

>>12974618
>>12974628
Infinite means without bounds. You can’t ascribe a quantity to it. So one infinity can’t be bigger than another

>>12974706

Wrong. There are infinite numerical sets for which there are not equal amounts of corresponding values within another numerical set.

Read up on Cantor.

>>12974618
It sounds mind blowing but is fairly simple.

First imagine a number based infinity in which all real numbers both positive and negative are included (...,-1,0,1...)

Now imagine the number set "every number greater than 5". While numbers lower than 5 are not included, technically it is still an infinite amount of numbers as the numbers continue endlessly after 5.

Or the number set 3 to 5, where the only numbers included are between 3 and 5, but if you introduce fractions, it is another form of infinity as you can keep splitting the numbers into smaller and smaller fractions.

>>12974753
All the examples of infinite sets you've cited are actually equinumerous--they're all countably infinite. Consider the set of all positive numbers (1, 2, 3...) and the set of "all positive even numbers (2, 4, 6...). The two can be placed in a one-to-one correspondence (or bijection) by the rule x <--> 2x. So every element of one set has exactly one partner in the other, and this in spite of the fact that the latter set is a strict subset of the former. If a finite set is a strict subset of another finite set this means they must be different sizes, but this is not so for infinite sets; in fact, one definition of an infinite set is "a set with the same cardinality as one of its proper subsets."
The real redpill is >>12974723. Cantor's diagonal argument proves that there are uncountably infinite sets, sets that cannot be placed in bijection with the natural numbers. The real numbers are an example (even the rationals or fractions you mention are countably infinite).

>>12974791
>>12974753
>>12974723
John Green is some next level shit. He must think fourth dimensionally.

>>12974791
>Cantor's diagonal argument proves that there are uncountably infinite sets, sets that cannot be placed in bijection with the natural numbers
mathfags always remind me that i am brainlet

>>12974618
why is john green so awful

>>12974791
>tfw will never be able to effortpost at this level

>>12974723
Infinite sets don’t exist.

>>12974618
She was drizzle and I was a hurricane.

He’s really an inspiration. Whenever I doubt my ability to be a decent writer, I just think of him.

>>12974618
A real Cantor, this guy.

>>12974618
>like forever ago
>infinite forever