/sci/ - Science & Math

Because infinity isn't a number.

Because if they were equal to anything else than 0%, it would imply that infinity is finite.

Infinity isn't a number. It's a concept. For any fixed number x and any Ω>0, we can find an N such that 0<|x/N|<Ω

Rounding

infinity doesn't exist
it's just a theory, a guess

>>3765731
>>3765723
infinity is a number within some number systems

wiki the extended real line, or the projective line

only high schoolers say "infinity isn't a number"

because the ratios of 1 to infinity and 1,000,000 to infinity are both zero, and thus are 0% of infinity.

this is true for any finite number.

>>3765748

Read again. Still not a number.

>>3765748
You know, or because this person isn't thinking about the projective real line with a point at infinity. He's thinking about normal numbers, and also infinity. No need to bring things like the projective line into this, it's a simple answer. Sure, I could also talk about topologies of the real line or the extended real line that would discuss infinity, but it's not what he's asking.

>>3765773
>normal numbers

Never heard of them, but apparently they exist. And yeah, infinity is not a normal number.

>>3765748
Fine, infinity isn't a real number.

>>3765767
herp
>>3765773
if he's talking about everyday numbers AND infinity, then we have to figure out what he means by infinity in this case. there are multiple definitions and we cannot answer if infinity is undefined.

>>3765789

Please, show us where it is explicitly stated that infinity is a number in any credible publication, in the extended real field or otherwise.

>>3765789
...if he knew about other variations on infinity, he wouldn't be asking this question in this way.

>>3765712
If you cant fit the number of decimal places within the universe, then it is zero. But that's just me.

>>3765809
just need to read first para

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number

if wiki is nonsense to you, just read george cantor

>>3765809
>extended real field

if you knew what the fuck you were talking about you would know that the MAIN effect of adding infinity/infinities to the reals is they stop being a field.

>>3765844

You obviously know nothing about cardinality or even set theory.

"Formally, assuming the axiom of choice, the cardinality of a set X is the least ordinal α such that there is a bijection between X and α."

Tell me, what is the cardinal to the set? Is the cardinal the set? Once you've answered these questions, you'll know your folly.

>>3765869
>folly

It's nice to hear people using that word once again.

Here's a good read for anyone ITT who isn't retarded but doesn't know his set theory, measures, and cardinalities of infinity yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

Once there are infinities involved, 0% doesn't necessarily mean "never", and 100% doesn't necessarily mean "surely".

>>3765869
cardinality is basically the ordinal without the ordering, which your bijection provides.

but this is irrelevant as this is a semantic argument as well you know, so your maths is a red herring.

infinity as a number has meaning only when you define it, that is a semantic issue.

>>3765869
>pompous twat

i'm a maths phd student and what is or is not a number depends on context.

Let's stick with real or complex numbers, guys. The number of people on /sci/ who understand things like the extended line or the Riemann sphere are few and far between.

/sci/ is the place where people are continually confused by the Monty Hall problem, 0.999...=1, and the boy-girl paradox.

Ok so we have 1/n and 1000000/n.

The limit as n goes to infinity in both cases is 0.

>>3765869
>Tell me, what is the cardinal to the set?
question makes no sense

>Is the cardinal the set?
obviously not, though it is a pretty metaphysical question. the cardinal *is* perhaps the set of all sets with a bijection to each other.

>>3765895
how can we stick with reals or compex when OP mentions infinity

>>3765893
I do not see how you can make the problem any more complicated than this.

The limit of c/n as n goes to infinity is zero when c is a constant.

/end thread.

They aren't

They're an infinitesimally small % of infinity, but not 0%.

>>3765906
Infinity was never a number. You can encounter infinity as a limit without switching to number systems that directly include it as a member of the set.

>>3765922
There are no nonzero infinitesimals in the set of real numbers. It's 0%.

You just need to understand that 0% doesn't necessarily mean "never" once there are infinities involved.
>>3765877

>>3765926
>infinity was never a number
here we go again

i'll say it slowly

there are many sets of "numbers" in maths in which you do arithmetic, some of these set's may have members that are referred to as infinity, or infinite.

semantics varies in use and formality, as at this level sets and their members are defined in mathematical language not english or whatever. so words, such as "number" and "infinity" are inadequate, but correspond fairly well with mathematical objects and so are used informally by mathematicians

>>3765918
This. It's the same as >>3765731 but simpler. And all that's needed. OP doesn't give a fuck about Cantor Sets and Riemann Spheres.

>>3765961
You seem to think you've contributed something relevant, but you haven't. You're the one arguing semantics. The rest of my post clarified well enough what I was talking about.
>>3765926
> You can encounter infinity as a limit without switching to number systems that directly include it as a member of the set.

>>3765970
i want to cum in your asshole and place my sweaty scrotum inside your mouth while rubbing my erect penis on your chin

>>3765922
You can interpret OP's assertion as something mathematically true:
1/∞=0=0% and 1,000,000/∞=0=0%, using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_line#Arithmetic_operations

However, "0% of ∞" isn't defined. Even using the notion of infinitesimal numbers I don't think you can give a meaning to this. So there is no contradiction, you can't deduce that 1=1000000.

>>3765991
I'm
>>3765895
>>3765939
Yeah, you have to define your measure, but by any real measure I can think of it's 0%. You could define it as the limit of the percentage that 1 or 1,000,000 constitutes as the whole approaches infinity.

>>3765987
No homo.

>>3765970
if you claim "infinity was never a number" you are making a semantic claim about what "number" and "infinity" mean. it is impossible to argue with this except semantically.

you can now scream "infinity is not a number" again if it helps you.

>>3766011
I was answering someone who thought we couldn't have a defined measure without using a number system which includes infinity, and I was just pointing out that this was unnecessary. Be more angry.

>>3765991
% is easy as % just means dividing/multiplying by 100

>>3765987

However, I do agree that >>3765970 is retard or troll. He did say infinity was never a number.

>>3766024
It continues to be a semantic argument over what I meant by "number". I obviously meant "member of the set of real numbers", as clarified in the rest of the post.

>>3765970
you can switch to limits to answer OP's question, but the discussion had turned to whether infinity was or was not a number.

the guy claiming it is a number is pretty much correct, especially about how "number" becomes as nebulous a word as "infinity" at higher levels of maths.

>>3766030
obviously infinity is not a set of the reals

i don't know if you arrived halfway through the argument, but we were talking about whether infinity was any sort of number, not a real number.

if you want to butt in with obvious high school truisms, then go you

>>3766030
obviously infinity is a real

i don't know if you arrived halfway through the argument, but we were talking about whether infinity was any sort of number, not a real number.

if you want to butt in with obvious high school truisms, then go you

>>3766034
>you can switch to limits to answer OP's question, but the discussion had turned to whether infinity was or was not a number.
As for that, see
>>3765895

Whenever anyone, especially on /sci/, says "number" without further specification, they mean a real number.

>>3766055
guess what. you don't actually get to decide what people on sci talk about or what they mean when they talk.

aspie methinks

>>3766055
>Whenever anyone, especially on /sci/, says "number" without further specification, they mean a real number.

hahaha. no

>>3766066
I'm just saying - simply because most of /sci/ doesn't know anything beyond real and complex numbers, they generally mean "real number" when they say "number".

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. If you want to talk about members of another set, just specify what set.

>>3766060
>infinity is a real
Infinity is not a member of the set of real numbers.

>>3766071
orly?

>Whenever anyone, especially on /sci/, says "number" without further specification, they mean a real number.

nope. most people have a very dim awareness if any aware that real numbers exist in the sense that they may not be rational, and if this really matters

>>3766077
a typo, obviously infinity is not a real

>>3766086
Real numbers are what gets taught in public education. Whether or not they are aware of other number systems with different properties doesn't change that.

>>3766093
np, on /sci/ you can never tell.

>>3766086
When I say number, I mean a complex number. Who the fuck uses real numbers for anything after the first year?

>>3766075
and when they introduce infinity?

do we shout "infinity is not a (real) number"

or wonder whether they are discussing some other number system in which infinity is defined?

seeing as a non-real ("infinity") has been brought up, the latter seems sensible

>>3766097
when i say number i mean integer. if it's a fraction i'll call it a fraction not a fucking number.

problem?

>>3766111
see
>>3765926
>You can encounter infinity as a limit without switching to number systems that directly include it as a member of the set.
Unless you're a math major in college, you never get to alternative number systems that actually include infinity. Even in my complex analysis class we only ever used infinity as a limit.

>>3766126
Congrats on being dumb then, I guess. Did you never use pi in school?

aspies always think their reality is universal.

dick in this thread is obvious assburger

>>3766138
it's called making a point through irony

sure is aspie in here

>>3766126
Is pi a number?

>>3766142
>>3766147
lol u mad?

>>3766130
you are just putting forward a possible way to proceed and somehow saying it is THE way to proceed before that is established.

again. aspergers

>>3766160
aspie attempt at being sassy

>>3766151
nope, it's a fucking fraction

prove me wrong, lambert

>>3766163
What do you suggest should be the default understanding when someone says "number"?

Most people wouldn't be excluding pi when they say "number", because they were told that pi is a number in school.

Stop being so damn butthurt about it.

>>3766172
>clear and unrefuted argument
>what should I do?
>time for ad-hominems
Stay classy, broseph.

>>3766178
default depends on context

if infinity is mentioned, seemingly as a number here as we have percentages of infinity, then i'd ask for clarification. but extended reals are good as you just have to do the arithmetic for the two infinities rather than explain limits to OP.

>>3766182
The number of people on /sci/ who can prove that pi is irrational without googling a proof first are also few and far between.

>>3766221
>extended reals are good as you just have to do the arithmetic for the two infinities rather than explain limits to OP.
If the OP doesn't understand limits, alternative number systems would probably just confuse the matter.

At that point thought, we're trying to work with the OP's current understanding, and you're right that asking for clarification would help.

>>3766188
"lol u mad" is a clear and unrefuted argument? and not actually an ad hominem?

perhaps you meant aspergers, which is a neurological condition, not an ad hominem.

one of the many aspie behaviours is to think your arguments are clear, and not accept easy mode refutations

>>3766236
nope

+/- infinity arithmetic is easy mode and most people already have some intuitive understanding of, say, 1/0 = infinity.

you, like the aspie you are, just thinks everyone should do things your way.

god i hate aspie selfishness

>>3766241
>perhaps you meant aspergers, which is a neurological condition, not an ad hominem.
What? Any argument like "I dismiss your argument because you are negative thing X" is ad hominem.

>one of the many aspie behaviours is to think your arguments are clear, and not accept easy mode refutations
What refutation? And BTW, the clear arguments are
>>3766075
>>3766130
>>3766178

>>3766254
>1/0 = infinity
>DIVIDING BY ZERO
There are systems and uses where you can say this, but applying it as "easy mode" for people who don't know what they are doing is asking for trouble. This is where troll-proofs are born.

>>3766278
no one dismissed your non argument with "aspie", they just explained your behaviour.

none of those quotes are good arguments. just weasel shit like "most people", " i find that".

i explain your thinking these are good arguments by your aspergers.

the refutation was basically, "if someone mentions infinity in the context of an arithmetic calculation (ie percentages) then reals may not be the context in which they are working"

>>3766293
the rules can be written in a few lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line#Arithmetic_operations

and if we worry about trolls abusing it then they have in some sense won

>>3766320
>the refutation was basically, "if someone mentions infinity in the context of an arithmetic calculation (ie percentages) then reals may not be the context in which they are working"
May not. But the justified assumption until you check is that they aren't familiar with number systems that include infinity, as few people do.

Holy shit guys, you try to crucify me for
>>3765926
even when that post clearly talks about the existence of number systems that include infinity? It's not like I didn't know about them.

I was responding to
>>3765906
>how can we stick with reals or compex when OP mentions infinity

God damn, this entire conversation has been pointless.

>>3766336
I think you're right that using all those operations casually is just fine, and complaining about it on /sci/ would be pointless and very aspie-ish.

Still, even in that example they don't define division by zero or other indeterminate forms - we shouldn't just ignore the problems that can create.

ITT: High school maggots pretending they know shit.

OP, YOU CAN'T FUCKING MULTIPLY 0 BY ∞ - IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE.

>No one dismissed your non argument with "aspie", they just explained your behaviour.

Start sentences with capital letters unless in a chat room where your name precedes your words.

>None of those quotes are good arguments. just weasel shit like "most people", " i find that".

The use of 'i' is incorrect when reffering to a person. It's capitalised.

>i explain your thinking these are good arguments by your aspergers.

I've explained how your aspergers makes you think these are good arguments.

>the refutation was basically, "if someone mentions infinity in the context of an arithmetic calculation (ie percentages) then reals may not be the context in which they are working"

End sentences with this guy --> .

>>3766415
10/10, I approve

>>3766415
>>3766415
hmm, you must be new here. standard capitalisation, even punctuation, is far from the norm.

>>3766445

samefag

inb4 samefag refutation

>>3766415
>I've explained how your aspergers makes you think these are good arguments.

nope. the original was grammatically correct and the tense/case as intended.

>>3766509
in after samefag refutation

>>3766487
in during samefag refutation

>>3766415
>I've explained how your aspergers makes you think these are good arguments.

>thinks being a typography nazi isn't 100% aspie behavior...

>>3766535
That is joke.

>>3766541
You're allowed to make sucky jokes, but not to yell on people when they ignore them.