/sci/ - Science & Math

Did OP just say that INFINITY
>Not a thing

>>14637432

Yes if you look at damped sine waves the zero point is infinity. This is the same zero point in audio engineering which the symbol is used instead of zero. This corresponds to gamma brain waves which is the fastest short wave frequency but highest in hertz. 30hz–100hz

Also, the symbol the circle, which is also the symbol for zerO and in One, has no beginning or end and contains the mathematical constant Pi as the circle constant, but I prefer Tau as the circle constant instead.

It was once.

That's what we call the Big Bang.

Out of nothing came everything :)
Out of 0 came the infinite universe

This is obvious. Maths are discovered. This terrifies 'shut up and calculate' types, though.

>>14637432
> [math] \infty + -\infty = 0 [/math]
wow, so profound

>>14637432
Negative numbers only exist in reference to positive numbers;

Only positive numbers exist. Negative numbers are only an idea, that you can have an amount of positive numbers, and lose an amount

>>14637603
>+∞±∞=0
sry, dont mind me

Is it possible to separate one of anything from infinity? How would this be mathematically represented by a balanced equation?
∞ - 1 = ???

>>14637621
would say it would still equal infinity since its an infinite pool to take from

>>14637624
∞ - 1 = ∞
∞ - 2 = ∞
∞ - 3 = ∞
∞ - ∞ = 0
hmm

>>14637603
>>14637617
>>14637629
>have infinite number of coins
>take away every other coin
>zero coins left

>>14637636
those statements clearly say
>have infinite source of coins
>take away infinite source of coins
>no infinite source of coins

Are you retarded?

The first expression (1 + (-1)) + (2 + (-2)) + (3 + (-3)) +... is equal to 0, the second one is equal to positive infinity. They are separate expressions. How can you equate them? Did I get baited?

>>14637644
"every other coin" is also an infinite number of coins

>>14637657
but would it not be presented as
∞ - ∞/2 = ∞
which is different than
∞ - ∞ = 0

>>14637432
>(shift all the negative integers by one place)
Lol

>>14637621
>>14637629
There can exist no such balanced equation!
Ha! CHECKMATE!
INFINITY FAGS SODOMIZED!

>>14637432
>(1 -1) + (1 -1) + ...
any proof dependent on the order of adding is bs

>>14637663
so ∞/2 != ∞?

>>14637919
∞ - ∞/2 != ∞ ?
was this your question?

>>14637967
is ∞ divided by 2 equal to ∞ or not

>>14638021
Thats not subject we were talking about earlier

>>14637432
>But this equation can also be written as, (shift all the negative integers by one place)
why can it be written in the same way?

>>14637432
Isn't the first series just a variant of Grandi's Series? It's not equal to 0. It diverges since the sequence of its partial sums {1, 0, 2, 0, 3, 0, ...} obviously doesn't converge.

You can do some kind of analytic continuation on it but in that case the sum probably won't be 0.

>>14637432
Proof is bogus because it assumes that the assocative property of addition plays nicely with divergent sequences. If I remember correctly there's one sum that you can show 1 = 4 because distributive properties of integers don't play nice with infinite/divergent sums

>>14637577
Well, no. I think "shut up and calculate" types are parroting that for passing classes, especially earlier ones, but maths are not really "discovered" either. As languages are created and can map onto things, but nonetheless the utility of the map need not do so at all either. Consider, I could just as easily define division by zero as we do "complex numbers" for some other purpose, such as . That is not a discovery, it is merely a definition, just as complex numbers are.

For example, complex numbers give you a vector of rotation, same for multiple vectors like quaternions can. You could, for no reason in particular, define 0 as some given axis and the numerator as its radian or degree. Or you could treat it as intersecting geometries where division by 0 is a real-number intersection of another set of numbers. On and on and on it goes. Is there any use to doing so? Probably not. Are these "discoveries"? No. You could do this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077903006283 or this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325768770_On_Unconventional_Division_by_Zero (I prefer the latter). You can do this because in standard reasoning mathematical fallacies ensue, and you have the principle of explosion. When something ceases to make sense, anything is on the table because you lack any attachment to truth preserving qualities (this is why fallacies are important to avoid).

I think people get confused about that just as people seem confused about language, and who are unable to conceive that languages and their utility do not exclusively pertain to a particular state of affairs. We can do useful things, make definitions that can make useful things, and even base those definitions on real life such that we learn of things before physically finding them to be so. All of this still means it is created, however, not discovered. Same for languages.

>>14637432
>hence 0 = infinity
And you need these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#Fallacies

0, representing "nothing", cannot represent "something" without introducing contradictions. You can define the operation however you like precisely because it does not, in fact, mean anything. >>14638266

More to the point, remember what division and quotients are. What is the ratio of a quantity and no quantity? It can't be infinite, because there is no ratio, as the two are unrelated (one exists, one doesn't). You can go on along those lines, or simply realize to do otherwise results in violating the law of identity.

>>14637432
>hence 0 = infinity
So it's true...
Jannies are the wealthiest people in the world...

>>14638266
Maths are discovered.

>>14637621
>∞ - 1 = ???
This remains unsolved.
Why cant math fags answer such a simple question?

>>14637432
Ok then explain how the temperature goes up to infinity, then to minus infinty and then to minus zero

>>14638023
if ∞/2 = ∞, then
∞ - ∞/2 = ∞ - ∞ = 0

right?

>>14638447
>if ∞/2 = ∞, then
Well is it? Define it first

>>14638447
∞ - ∞ = 0
>>14637644
∞ - ∞/2 = ∞
>>14637636 (exeption there is still every other coin left)

These were the statements and i just make this little shortcut here so they can be found faster if you want to keep pondering