/sci/ - Science & Math

infinity^2

>>4756958 Go away.

infinity + 0.0000....00001

"Spurbleblanity": n. bigger than infinity.

Even God can't come up with a number bigger than infinity, therefore God isn't omniscient and since he is not omniscient he also can't be omnipotent and since he can't be omnipotent, the christian God doesn't exist.

>>4756958
No.

It depends which infinity you're talking about.

There are is a hierarchy of infinities in mathematics, each strictly greater than the last.

All of the posts in this thread show that yet again sci does not have a fucking clue what it's talking about. That would be normally be fine, but unfortunately sci doesn't actually realise it's ignorant as fuck.

<span class="math">\infty^\infty<span class="math">[/spoiler][/spoiler]

Speaking of infinity...
Are all the numbers up to infinity already laid out in math space or they're still going on counting forever?

Sure, <span class="math"> \aleph_{1} [/spoiler] is greater than one infinity, <span class="math"> \aleph_{0} [/spoiler]
<span class="math"> \aleph_{2} > \aleph_{1} [/spoiler]
See how this works?

n = infinity
n+1

>>4757021
>math space

>>4757035
What happens when I <span class="math">\aleph_\infty[/spoiler]?

Which kind of infinity?

>>4757042
It's bigger than any other <span class="math">\aleph_x[/spoiler], but smaller than f.e. <span class="math">D_\infty for D_n = \aleph_n[/spoiler]

>>4757021
this is precisely the kind of thing that pure mathematicians research.

i'm joking, your question is retarded and so are you.

>>4757042

What happens? <span class="math">\aleph_\infty[/spoiler] will be bigger then any <span class="math">\aleph_x[/spoiler] for <span class="math">x \ne \infty[/spoiler]
but smaller than f.e. <span class="math">D_\infty[/spoiler] for <span class="math">D_x = \aleph_x + 1[/spoiler]

>>4756958
Which infinity are you talking about?

>>4756958
Infinity isn't a number and no number is bigger than infinity. Another infinity may or may not be bigger thought.

>>4757068
you are talking absolute crap. you have no idea what aleph even symbolises. please in future when you are ignorant about something, go learn it before you attempt to teach it.

>>4756958
>>>/b/

>>4757086
It seems to me that I wrote is completely true as aleph is used to represent the cardinality of infinite sets which is an infinity.

If I am wrong I would like an explanation.

>>4757086
It seems to me that what I wrote is completely correct as aleph is used to represent the cardinality of infinite sets which is an infinity.

If I am wrong I would like an explanation.

>>4757129
i can't explain how absolute nonsense is incorrect.

do you know what the word 'cardinality' means?

different kinds of infinities.

infinity + n
infinity - n

>>4757143
yes I do.
I would appreciate it if you dropped the attitude.
If you think I don't understand of mathematics good enough and therefor say something stupid, tell me exactly what it is and why what I'm saying is "absolute bullshit".

>>4757143
yes I do.
I would appreciate it if you dropped the attitude.
If you think I don't understand a specific area of mathematics good enough and therefor say something stupid, tell me exactly what it is and why what I'm saying is "absolute bullshit".

>>4757158
the horse went went unless in three because of the because forty.

explain to me exactly why this is bullshit.

if you can't, fuck off.

>>4756958
P(your infinity)

>>4757166
See, the difference between that sentence and my sentence is that your sentence is just a bunch of random words while my sentence is a coherent mathematical expression that you are telling me to be wrong. I would ask you once again why, but it's clear you're very immature and have a kind off /b/-like attitute so I don't really expect you to contribute anything to this discussion. So I will "fuck off" now.

>>4757190
> your sentence is just a bunch of random words while my sentence is a coherent mathematical expression

this is where you went wrong.

>>4757006

>I know something about infinity
>people have been posting jokes about infinity
>I most be the only one on the board who knows about infinity in math
>The whole board is stupid
>but not me

>>4756965
>>4756967
>>4757015
>>4757038

>>4757202
jokes are fine, i just get pissed off at the nerds on here who talk down to people on stuff they have no fucking idea about (viz all the people who just said 'no' to OP). i don't know why they think they do have any idea.

>>4757208

Truth is, a lot of people on /sci/ has learned about infinity, real analysis for example. And a lot still post like they are the only people on /sci/ that knows something about a particular subject.

Including you.

(1+2+4+8+16+32...)
(1+2+4+8+16+32...)*(1)
(1+2+4+8+16+32...)*(2-1)
(2+4+8+16+32+64...)-(1+2+4+8+16+32...)
-1

There, infinity = -1

>>4757214
yeah when i said 'sci' i did not mean every single person on sci including myself.

just the sci gestalt. you know it's true.

if infinity then the god exist?

christan 1
athiest 0

>>4757035
'The aleph numbers differ from the infinity (∞) commonly found in algebra and calculus.'
They aren't bigger or smaller than infinity, they are a different concept.

Is the union of <span class="math">\aleph_0, \aleph_1, \aleph_2, \ldots[/spoiler] provably a set in ZFC?

Or maybe I should ask whether the union of
<span class="math">\mathbb{N}, \mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N}), \mathcal{P}(\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{N})), \ldots[/spoiler]
is provably a set.

>>4757248

Alright, I'll give you that. There's only so many physics and math students/graduates here.

>>4757306
Wouldn't it be <span class="math">\aleph_\alpha[/spoiler]?

>>4758072
<span class="math"> \aleph_{0} [/spoiler] is not a set.

>>4758090
It's not a 0, read the tex

>>4758090
>>4758109
Anyway, Consider that the answer to >>4757296
instead of >>4757306

>>4757306
would be a set with that cardinality. And, technically cardinals are sets...

>>4756958
> Can you name a number that is bigger than infinity?

The word "number" is ambiguous. Are you talking about a real number? Are you talking about one of Cantor's transfinite cardinal numbers? It makes a difference.

Because of the simplicity of your question, I'll assume that you are probably not familiar with more advanced number systems, so I'll assume that you mean a real number. In that case, the answer is no -- there is no real number r such that r > ∞.

>>4757039
Our othermaths fight in the math space, solving our mathematical problems for us. When they die carrying our math issues, we become free of them.

>>4756958
>Can you name a number that is bigger than infinity?
x=|ℂ|

Better question: does there exist a set such that it's size is |ℚ|<|X|<|ℝ|

ITT: Retards
Complex infinity.

<span class="math">\hat{\infty}[/spoiler]

>>4758554
Dude, C has the same cardinality as R... as for intermediate cardinalities, the question is undecidable, that is, it could be true or false without contradicting the ZFC axioms.

>>4758555

<span class="math"> \hat{ \infty } == \infty * e^{i \theta }[/spoiler] were <span class="math"> \theta [/spoiler] arbitrary

it's not bigger

>>4758564
>I never said it wasn't

>>4758578
Oh fuck I got it now.

>>4758072
Just read the Wikipedia article on aleph numbers (probably should have done that in the first place); the cardinal does exist in ZFC and it's called <span class="math">\aleph_\omega[/spoiler].

>>4758568
lolnope. There is a circle of infinities, one at each and every line through the origin.

Projective complex space > Reals

>>4758090
Everything is a set in ZFC. Well, unless you count things like propositions and predicates.

>>4758115
> >>4757306 would be a set with that cardinality.
Assuming the generalized continuum hypothesis, it is. If it's true in general, it's not immediately obvious.

>>4758588
And by "just read" I mean "I just read."

>>4758592
>fail
C* with the point at complex infinite is just S² which is just R² U {one point}

one point hardly makes a different with infinities...