/sci/ - Science & Math

Even if it gets infinitely small that's 1/infinity * infinity. But you are taking a number greater than zero, and multiplying it by infinity.

Math BTFO

>>11164841
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake

>>11164866
I don't know...

>>11164841
What number are you multiplying by infinity?
Also, what is infinity?

>>11164871
There's something familiar about this post.
Imagine if somebody saw the fact that I've got these numbers 4 times in a row now.:

97, 97, 4, and now 71.

>>11164873
A real number greater than zero.
Infinity is a real number greater than n where n is equal to n+1

>>11164875
hey it's me your french celestial girlfriend UWU

>>11164876

Thanks for the timestamp 4.

>>11164875
Please translate into non-autistic

>>11164881

I dreamed about a French Christian woman being personally upset about something on April 15th of this year.

>>11164875
>A real number greater than zero.
What real number is it?
>Infinity is a real number greater than n where n is equal to n+1
Define the real numbers.

>>11164885
still autistic

>>11164886
It's the number that is so large that the summation is no longer convergent when you reach it.
>>11164889
I had a 2 second dream about her in a blue and white building before the two shootings on August 3rd.

>>11164886
>Define the real numbers.
Equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers

>>11164871
yeah, takes more than 1 min to understand
retard

>>11164841
There's no such thing as adding infinite times. The partial sums converge. That's all it means for an infinite sum to equal something

>>11164895
>>11164889

>>11164902
It also takes you zero seconds to explain because you didn't bother to. How can infinity times a number greater than zero equal a real number? Are you sure you don't just misunderstand it yourself???

>>11164906

But don't you realize the significance of that?

>>11164907
The terms get smaller, you're not multiplying a single nonzero value by infinity

>>11164912
The term being added remains greater than zero always, for infinite additions.

>>11164912
You are multiplying a non-zero value by infinity. You are adding infinitely many terms which are greater than zero always.

>>11164917
Take 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + 1/2^n + ...
It should be clear that any finite cutoff of this sum is less than 2. Each partial sum is greater than the last, but all partial sums are less than 2. You can't perform infinite addition operations, but the partial sums converge to 2. The definition of an infinite sum is that convergence of partial sums.

>>11164931

So are you admitting that I am right that if you were to perform infinite additions it would diverge? And the real error here was not me but the way that mathematicians write their equations such as to come off as implying that n increases to infinity and reaches it?

>>11164841
What if I told you that for s = -2 it converges to 0 ?

>>11164935
The partial sums don't diverge, they converge. The notation is convenient shorthand to denote the limit of partial sums, and it isn't misleading for anyone that learns the first thing about infinite series.

>>11164939

What I really want to know is what causes 1/2 + imaginary to converge.

>>11164895
You still haven't defined it.
>>11164896
Not a proper definition, but I'll just assume that you mean two Cauchy sequences are equivalent if the difference between them tends to zero under the metric |x-y|.
In that case, there is no real number n such that n=n+1, following from the least upper bound property. Therefore, your definition of infinity makes no sense.

>>11164942
Yeah, it is misleading, why are you using a Greek capital letter for this, why is n=1 at the bottom of the sigma and infinity on top of it if you aren't actually extending it to infinity? Why isn't there any clue that it starts at 1 and ends at infinity?

>>11164945
I'm a different anon from the n=n+1, that's obviously wrong by the archimedean property

>>11164945
Infinity is a number which must have a real value.

If I take 1 and add 1 and add 1 and add 1...

then it will always have a value, but nothing is stopping me from adding 1 again, so infinity is a real number who's value is infinity+1

>>11164942
What if you just said "n = 1 to infinity" or something like that instead of schizophrenic chicken scratch

>>11164841
>For s=2, how can the function be convergent when you are adding numbers that are always above zero, infinite times?
because the limit of sequence of partial sums exists. this is the definition of convergence for an infinite sum.

>>11164952
No real number has that property. r < r+1 for all reals

>>11164952

If you disagree with this definition then sorry. Maybe FUNCTIONALLY you can define infinity otherwise but not in reality.

>>11164964
Yes, infinity has to be a real number. For example 1+1+1+1+1... always has a value, but no limit.
>>11164963
But still explain one thing, in infinite additions won't it diverge? SURE for the first few trillion additions it converges, but for infinity it would diverge.

>>11164952
Wrong, and your hand-wavy definition is nonsensical. I've shown that given your definition of the real numbers, your definition of infinity is ridiculous. >>11164949 has also mentioned the Archimedean property, which says that you cannot have infinitely large real numbers. Until you legitimately define infinity as a real number (pro tip, you cannot), your claims have no basis.

>>11164964
That is, I can extend 1+1+1+1... any amount of times and the result will have to have a real value.

>>11164967
The function 1+1+1+1+1... will always have a real numerical value. A solid value right? Yes.

So...

infinity has a value.

Take 1, add 0.1, then 0.01, then 0.001. You'll approach 1.1111111....., never get anywhere near 1.2.

>>11164966
>in infinite additions won't it diverge
no, because no matter how many terms you add you will never get a number higher than pi^2/6. you could add a million terms, a billion terms, a gajillion terms, a gorillion terms. you will never get a partial sum greater than pi^2/6.
Again, this is the definition of a convergent sum.

>>11164967
You just can't accept that infinity is self-contradictory. But math itself is actually self-contradictory, nobody ever said the world had to make sense did they?

1+1+1+1.. for any number of ones will always have a coherent solid value. But there is no limit to the amount of ones you can add so...

1+1+1+1...+1 has a value for any number of ones in the ... which has infinite possibilities. It's a self-contradictory statement but it's reality.

>>11164970
Addition is a binary operation, meaning it only produces a value given two inputs. You can use induction to show that any arbitrarily long, finite string of additions must have a value, but this says nothing about infinite addition operations.

>>11164973
>The function 1+1+1+1+1...
That's not a function.
>will always have a real numerical value.
Do you mean adding infinitely many 1s? No, it does not have a numerical value, because the series diverges.

>>11164975

So why is the arbitrary number of 6 relevant to 1/n^2 and how is pi squared relevant to anything

>>11164978
>>11164979
>"I'm right because I'm right"
You are making up terms to consider yourself right.

If I give you a brick for every time I give you a brick, will you have to have a number of bricks? Yes. How large? Infinitely.

>>11164979
You are saying that if I give you a coin for each time I give you a coin, you will not have any coins because the coins diverge? You will have to have a set amount of coins at all times, even after infinite coins. That's a contradiction in math/reality itself. There are such contradictions.

>>11164982
Any time you give me a brick, I will always have finitely many bricks, no matter how many bricks you've given me so far.

>>11164980
feel free to read the proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_problem

>>11164983
There's no contradiction, you just haven't understood what divergence of a sequence actually means

>>11164982
>You are making up terms to consider yourself right.
No, these terms were made up so that math can actually make sense without contradictions. You do not understand what these terms mean, because you have not learned math beyond middle school.
>>11164983
>You are saying that if I give you a coin for each time I give you a coin, you will not have any coins because the coins diverge?
No. You cannot physically do something an infinite amount of times. When you add 1 infinitely many times, the series diverges. That does not mean it goes to zero, you retard.
>You will have to have a set amount of coins at all times, even after infinite coins
No. You will have a a set number of coins after finitely many times. When you do it infinitely many times, we can only say that it diverges. You do not understand what infinite means.

>>11164943
>What causes 1/2 + jb to converge

Well its on the critical line

[math]
\text{ }^{\color{#571da2}{\displaystyle\text{W}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{\color{#462eb9}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f47c8}{\displaystyle\text{y}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#3f62cf}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#437ccc}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#4b90bf}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#56a0ae}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#62ab99}{\displaystyle\text{t}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#71b484}{\displaystyle\text{h}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#82ba70}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#96bc5f}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#a9bd52}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#bcbb48}{\displaystyle\text{o}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#ceb541}{\displaystyle\text{n}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#dcab3c}{\displaystyle\text{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e39938}{\displaystyle\text{/}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e68033}{\displaystyle\text{s}}}}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{^{^{^{\color{#e3632d}{\displaystyle\text{c}}}}}}}}}\text{ }^{^{^{^{\color{#de4227}{\displaystyle\text{i}}}}}}\text{ }^{\color{#da2121}{\displaystyle\text{/}}}
[/math]

>>11164984
Yes, and no matter how many bricks I do give you... even infinite.
>>11164993
Cope.

>>11165036
>Yes, and no matter how many bricks I do give you... even infinite.
you cannot give infinite bricks to someone. infinity is not a quantity.

>>11165036
Retard.

>>11165038
No, no, no,
you are misinterpreting a contradiction because your feabile mind can't accept reality.

You CAN give infinite bricks to somebody, and it must be a quantity, but it is not, that is not possible, but it is possible, because reality contradicts itself, you are biasing your statements on the false pretense that reality has to be coherent and solid.

>>11165046

People said that to me when I was saying sans was going to be in the current smash bros. game, and guess what Smash Bros. game sans was added to?

>>11164907
is the snowflake infinite? why not?
lrn2read

>>11164909
nope, not an autist

>>11165053
Just accept that infinity is a real number which is impossible but it happens any ways.

>>11165046
No, you are saying that because math can't have contradictions it can't be a contraction, but you are the one imposing that invalid rule yourself. You are right because you are right under your own terms. But it is a contradiction.

There are a lot of contradictions in real life you know.

>>11165055

So only an autist would see a correlation between a French Christian woman being upset for the first time since Christchurch, and a newsworthy French Christian building burning down the same day that she was upset ?

>>11164952
>Infinity is a number
nope

>>11165058
>only an autist
no of course not, the world is full of various mental illnesses

>>11165059
Say I write a program that adds one to n for every time that it adds one to n and then returns the final value of n.

You can lie to yourself or you can realize that n has to be a number but the program would crash because the reality of the situation contradicted itself.

>>11165062

Let's be hypothetical then, say you, a completely mentally healthy individual knew of a woman that was French and Christian, and the same thing happened to you.

>>11165063
>program that adds
never gets out of the number zone
infinity is bigger than any number

>>11165067
No infinity is not bigger than any number because infinity is a number, the biggest number.

>>11165065
>Let's be hypothetical
[hand waving intensifies]

>>11165071
>71 intensifies

>>11165069
>the biggest number
no such thing, you can always do the +1

>>11165075
the biggest number is -11/12

>>11165079
-11/12+1

>>11165075

Yes, that's why infinity is contradictory. There has to be a biggest number.

>>11165081
>has to be
[citation needed]

>>11165082
>there has to be a citation
[citation needed]

>>11165085
well I'm convinced now

>>11165090
If you weren't convinced you'd be ignoring my threads instead of spending as much time as I do on this site reading my posts. Keep telling yourself I'm wrong, while you still can, because one day you'll realize I was right duh.

>>11165091
[citation needed]

>>11165091
[citation needed]

>>11164841
1.0 + .1 + .01 + .001 + . 0001 + .00001 + .000001... will never add up to something larger than 1.2 That's why.

>>11165097
But .999999 = 1 if you add enough .00000009s...

>>11165062
You don't think this picture of a series of events was even suspicious in the slightest?

>>11165100
Yes, but 1.11111111111... doesn't equal 1.2 if you keep sticking ones on the back end.

>>11164952
>infinity is a number
Yes, but it isn't a real number, so it can't have a "real" value. It's more useful to think of infinity as a direction than a number.

>>11165102
so it grows to be infinite?

>>11165106
>grows to be infinite
Stop that, that isn't how infinity works. It just adds up to 1.1111.... That isn't infinity, it's 1.1111....

>>11165104
1/inf = 0
it's an unbounded quantity, certain operations make sense, but inf-inf, 0*inf, inf/inf etc. are undefined

>>11165115
1/inf absolutely does not equal 0 by any definition, theorem, axiom, law, or even logic in mathematics. What you're attempting to describe is a limit as some constant is divided by a value that approaches infinity - that is not the same thing as dividing a constant by infinity. You do not understand the math you're trying to talk about, which is why you're confused.

Infinity is not a real number, it has no real value. You should think about it as a direction on the real number line until you learn more math.

>>11165063
The program would never finish, you retard.
>>11165069
Once again. You cannot claim that infinity is a number if you are unable to define a number infinity that agrees with a definition of the real numbers. See >>11164945
>>11165081
>There has to be a biggest number.
By the axiom of infinity you are wrong. If you don't want to assume the axiom of infinity, then you cannot talk about infinity at all.
>>11165085
This is the perfect way to show just how retarded you really are.
>>11165106
No, you idiot. It converges to 10/9.

>>11165118
>it has no real value
it's BIIIIIIIIIIIIIG
duh

>1/inf absolutely does not equal 0 by any definition, theorem, axiom, law, or even logic
sure bud
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2Finf

>>11165123
Wow, you sure know a lot of stuff, wanna share the secrets of the universe? Since you're so smart after all.

>>11165126
>secrets of the universe
your mom is a slut

>>11165126
I know high school level math, you fucking moron. If you payed attention in class, this wouldn't be so hard for you to grasp.

>>11165125
>a computer, which cannot perform infinite calculations, can divide by infinity
I can also prove that 2=1 if I start the proof by stating that 2=1, which is completely wrong. You cannot divide by infinity, and computers can't do math. You're either a troll or so woefully ignorant that I can't help you. Either way, I'm leaving.

>>11165128

>>11165127

So all that high school math but you still don't know the answer to important existential questions?

>>11165125
You do realize that computers don't, and literally can't use the real number system.

>>11165129
>perform infinite calculations
You are stupid beyond belief if you think WA didn't look up that result from a table that a professional mathematician made.

>>11165130
What is your point here? I've shown time and time again that you're wrong and a retard. Now you're just going off on some nonsense, trying to change the subject and act superior or some shit.

>>11165131
>>11165133

>>11165134
You haven't shown I'm wrong a single time and nice post number.

>>11165133
Are you retarded?

>>11165139
>seething

>>11165138
Then refute what I've said. Firstly state whether you will use the axiom of infinity. Then construct the real numbers and define infinity, and prove that infinity fits in the definition of the real numbers.

>>11165129
>I'm leaving.
W|A isn't, for a good reason

>>11165140
It's not seething. You lack reading comprehension abilities and an understanding of math.

>>11165144
>i'm better than all math
>and W-A
topkek

>>11165141
How can I be wrong if I believe that infinity is not a real number?

Lol.

>>11165160
I don't even know who you are, but if you agree with OP or you're one of the people I've been replying to, then you're wrong.

>>11165184
Me? Wrong? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I am OP but I didn't believe in that since the start of the thread, did you notice the troll face I posted too?

>>11165148
Again, you lack reading comprehension abilities.

>>11165184
I'm OP but I didn't actually believe in what I was arguing for.
You thought this post (>>11164907) was being serious? Lol.

>>11165187
cope

>>11165214
familiar post lol.

This is why there is a gap between idiots and intellectuals.
Imagine thinking that a sum of an infinite number of positive values must always diverge. I can't. OP is such a brainlet.
You walk from point A to B, distance between them is 2.
You must cross the midpoint, which is 1 from A.
You must cross the next midpoint, which is 1.5. And the next midpoint, 1.75. And so on.
Each time, you add 1/n^2 to the sum. There is an infinite number of midpoints (n) but the sum never surpass 2. Otherwise you would be able to fly across the universe. Retard.

>>11165233

>Otherwise you would be able to fly across the universe.

>>11165234
hehehehe!!!

>>11164841
It depends on how fast those numbers approach 0

>>11165233
>>11165242
The sum is based on pi, but you don't even know what pi is to the infinity digit so... yikes...

>>11165244

hehe!!!

same way like 1+2+3+... = -1/12

>>11165854
hehe