/sci/ - Science & Math

Less bullshit than frogposters, but that's a low bar.

You don't really use infinity though, just a really really big number, depending on how accurate you want to be.

you wouldn't believe just how much knowledge of the modern world is bullshit. can drive a person insane.

>>14817107
1/inf is used all the time

>>14817100
We don't know, nobody has ever examined an entire infinity before

>>14817107
the Chinese used the term "ten thousand things" to represent infinity in philosophy kek

>>14817340
that's 0.0007% of their population
maybe they're talking about [math]\aleph_0[/math]?

>>14817100
The universe may be infinite. The radius of a black hole may be 1/infinite.

Infinity is more of a concept.
It's based on the idea that you can keep counting numbers and never come up with a upper limit.
Of course the universe will die eventually, so you can't literally keep counting numbers forever, but it's impossible to come up with an upper limit anyway, because if there was an upper limit, you could just start counting from there

>>14817353
>The radius of a black hole may be 1/infinite.
So then does a "black hole" go from 3d -> 2d ->1d singularity?

If radius = 1/infinity
then circumference = ~6.28/infinity
and area = ~3.14/infinity

How does it shrink to a singularity from there?

>>14817100
Infinite time is kind of reasonable
Infinite empty space beyond the universe
And an infinite number of times matter and energy could possibly form different objects in infinite time.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed, it will exist forever, and counting forever is counting infinitely

>>14817100
Infinity is a statement about algorithms rather than a number.

Mathematicians are retarded and can't into computing and think infinity is a number, buy any useful statement about infinity can be read as a statement about the convergence of a computable algorithm.

>>14817100
Not any more than negative numbers, the concept of 0 as a thing, or irrational numbers.

>>14817100
>>14817385
Baby's first steps.

>isn't infinity kinda bullshit?
No, infinity is whatever converges to it. It is not something that you directly calculate with. The formula 1/x will converge to 0 if x is a very large number and if x is infinitely big, then 1/x will be infinitesimally close to 0. It's basic college math or so I thought at least.

>>14817732
>No, infinity is whatever converges to it
>getting close means being equal
what's with these braindead niggers who haven't even studied calculus yet talk as if they did?

>>14817844
>getting close means being equal
>I have never bothered with actually studying the basics of differentiation
There's so many articles on that on Wikipedia alone.
Aleph number, infinitesimal numbers, ordinal numbers, infinity. Why do you expect me to spoon-feed you?

>>14817844
its the faggot undergrads who just took calculus who spout that kinda bullshit

>>14817353
>The radius of a black hole may be 1/infinite.
The more fun idea is that the radius of a black hole may in fact be INFINITE.

>>14817886
oh god oh fuck

>>14817877
Cantor didn't know the difference of a numeral and a number, you don't either it seems

>>14817936
A numeral is just a symbol that represents a number. "6" is a numeral; the underlying quantity six is a number.

>>14817107
Without convegence that means nothing

>>14817993
Yes. Infinity is not a number

>>14818098
Right, I think it's best thought of as a limit (or more to the point, the absence of any limit).

Infinity only exists on /sci. Which is why everyone else in the world laughs at /sci-tards.

>>14817732
>It's basic college math or so I thought at least.
I wouldn't know because I didn't go to college.
But I don't feel like you answered my question.
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume you're a math teacher.

>>14818108
unbounded quantity

>>14818135
sure bud
[math] \displaystyle
\lim_{x \to \infty} \dfrac{x+1}{x} =
\lim_{x \to \infty} 1+ 1/x = 1+0 = 1
[/math]

>>14818135
The universe was just shown to be infinite and eternal a few weeks ago

>>14818430
sauce please

>>14818135
Actually finitism autists only exist on /sci/.

Infinity is a rational concept in my mind

>>14817140
based contrarian

>>14817107
it's used in optics a lot. reflector type sighting devices, etc.

There are only two options. Either infinity is imaginary, and the finite world we are used to is real. Or infinity is real and the finite world we intuitively assume to be real is imaginary. Quantum physics is showing us again and again that it is the latter option.

Infinity? I only see finite strings of symbols. Which math book has infinity in it?

>>14817190
In Reimann sphere, maybe. I think you can do analysis perfectly well without the extended reals.

>>14817100
Yes, it is satanic, a representation of Hell, being stuck and never being able to get out, it serves to disconnect people from reality, and is proof of how false math is.
No matter how many numbers you find in Pi, it will never be correct enough.
Reality is above mathematics, this world would be better off without maths.

>>14819643
>No matter how many numbers you find in Pi, it will never be correct enough
aka infinity

>>14817691
No, everyone basically knows its this and no one thinks its a number.

>>14819719
It's proof numbers cannot reflect reality.
Infinity does not exist other than in Hell, it's a byproduct of how flawed maths is.

>>14819263
atomic clocks
electromagnetic spectrum, radio
speed of light
medicine
cosmology
psychiatry

infinity as a mathematical object

>>14818430
>The universe was just shown to be infinite and eternal a few weeks ago
We think the universe is 14 billion years old and if we observe such and such we should be close to right.

Galaxies exist earlier than we thought. Therefore the universe is not 14 or 15 or 16 or 18 or 20 or 50 or 100 or 1000 or 100000 billion years old, it must be infinite and eternal

>>14819422
>Infinity?
Count every individual letter in every single printed book that exists on earth, then consider when you have finished, how many more books have been printed, then when you finish counting those, consider how many more books have been printed while you were counting

>>14819625
>>14818425

>>14817100
What do you mean?

Infinity is used frequently as a shorthand in math. It is used consistently in this way. The limit as n goes to infinity is defined without ever mentioning infinity.

We can extend real numbers to include "a point at infinity" by adding a point to the set of real numbers and calling it "infinity". If you prefer, you could call it "p" or "x" or whatever you want. If you disagree, it is more worth discussing that.

Sometimes when we know the limit approaches something as n approaches goes to 0, we may write in infinities for the n's to mean "As these numbers get really big clearly these will dominate those..." We aren't actually appealing to infinity, just writing it in place of the whole argument.

These should not seem suspicious. If they do, what makes them seem suspicious?

>>14818425
>>14819803
I don't who you tagged as the counterargument, but if infinite limits is your counterargument for the fact that "analysis can be done without the extended reals," then no. Infinite limits can be and are usually defined without extended reals. The infinity symbol is just an intuitive notation. In fact, some analysis books do not even write the infinity symbol, just write lim with no subscript.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_function

>>14820054
oc they are
the whole lim business is a song-and-dance so the show can be done within the reals.
Very important in the 1800s no doubt.
But these days you can mostly jump over jrgwkjthe reinventing the wheel phase.

>>14817100
Infinity is a consequence of a logical explosion at the origin point that creates boundless potential values due to arithmetic self contradiction of the zero point where it is assumed to be its own negating value, its own opposite number, a contradiction unto itself, which logically always creates a system of explosive logic.

>>14820078
It's still important because it gives us an "operational" definition of infinity. So we can use it to prove theorems that would otherwise call scepticism. For example the order limit theorems, which in fact does not work for strict inequalities. I don't think you could have figured that out confidently with just intuitive definitions.

>>14817100
1/0

not so bullshit now huh?

>>14820128
>>14820054
>>14820078
Samefag

>>14820340
You are two-thirds right.

>>14820345
Your opinion is three-fifths relevant.

>>14820352
Why is that?

>>14820355
Compromise.

>>14820128
>definition of infinity
An unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.

>>14821001
And how do you know such a number exists?

>>14821061
>number
lrn2read

Infinity is the limit of the series 1, 2, 3…

>>14821001
>An unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.
the usage of "quantity" and "greater than every real number" here are retarded incorrect implications that infinity is a mathematical object with relation to numbers.

Infinity is unquantifiable.
>

>>14819643
no, retarded faggot.
It's our imperfect approximation of God's creation.
We can infer exact results, but we can never represent them perfectly.
Someone (Kronecker?) said, against cantor's infinities; that God created the integers and all else is the work of man.
I say God created the continuum, and we can only but approximate it with our limited perception.

>>14821774
1/inf=0

>>14817140
Yeah there's a lot of hidden or removed knowledge coming back today ^^

>>14821088
Nope, there are an infinity of numbers between each of those.

>>14821897
Man created integers, and arrogant mathematicians who have deluded themselves into believing they were gods then dared claiming integers, a man made kabbalistic garbage, comes from God.
The only truth comes from the Bible, not from mathematical abstract garbage.
Maths is devoid of love. It is cold, harsh, and devoid of feelings. Yet Jesus is love. That is how one knows maths is satanic and serves to lead man astray.

>>14822352
>from the Bible
https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/4-12.htm

>>14822356
From the Bible: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
https://www.openbible.info/topics/tree_of_knowledge

>>14822361
have some more toast, retard

>>14822365
Keep biting unto that fruit of knowledge, soientist.

>>14822368
ok shitmouth

>>14822381
Oy vey

>>14822382
>more shit
tic tacs, now

>>14822391
Oy vey

>>14822404
you having butter with that?

>>14822422
Oy vey

>>14822429

>>14822438
Oy vey

>>14822440
>wall-of-text schizo
errytime

>>14822451
The truth burns, eh, moshe?

>>14822455
you wouldn't know

>>14822459
Oy vey

>>14822464

>>14822469
Oy vey

>>14822477
>im soo offended
lol, snowflake

>>14822491
Oy vey

>>14822494
I'm not defending Israel
nazi =/= germans
israel =/= jews

>>14822510
Oy vey

>>14822513
low iq post

>>14821088
What is the value of N for which infinity is the neighbourhood of epsilon = 1?