/sci/ - Science & Math

Infinity doesn't exist, bud. It's just an idea created by humans; not the most sound concept, but a concept none the less

>>5491790
>implying 0 isn't just an idea created by humans
>implying anything isn't just an idea created by humans

infinite has no value, stupid.

>>5491788
I think you mean to say each new interpretation of itself would derive from itself and thus be only part of its former but in that it is merely deriving its form is it changing its reference and as such no longer on the spectrum of the previous as to say equal or greater, the later being an indifferent state between them as the next gains its habitation of self from the previous while at the same time leaving the previous to fulfill, as mentioned, its own interpretation of the previous- thus leaving all parts in constant with eachother to know their own states but on the whole being inadvisable of the previous thus making the former untouchable by the next and the next un-specifiable by itself

And goodfuckingluck trying to wrap your head around that

>infinity is unboud
lolwut infinity is not a set, it's a well defined concept that you can only use in the rigorous frame it was intended to, otherwise you'd have to redefine it and derive all its properties regarding operations/relations you intend to use.

>>5491812
Nope, saying complicated things without substance doesn't make you sound smart.

>>5491821
>pre-time has no value

Confirmed Retard (yet perspective accurate)

>>5491821
>pre-time has no value

Confirmed Retard (yet prospectively accurate)

do you get paid just to troll us?

>>5491841
ad hominem, also nothing to do with my post

good lord do I hate this board

infinity is not a number

>>5491945
come on, this troll is so old and overused

>>5491935
I feel the same way. You;d think these chattel would first have at least a cursory glance at the subject they're trying to discuss first.

But oh no, that's asking way too much, they just blurt out whatever bullshit happens to be on their mind at the time think that somehow they've come up with an idea no one before has ever thought of, and everyone joins in the circlejerk.

I honestly think this pic is an accurate representation of the average person on this board. I have no idea why I visit this shithole.

>>5491947
>Infinity isn't a logical number, and here's why
"You're right. Infinity isn't a number."
>0/10, troll.

>>5492089
What the fuck is a "logical number"?

>>5492089
Pls go away, middle schooler. You are not qualified to talk about math.

>>5492092
But it's not a number, and it's not supposed to be used like one.

That's why we use conversions like t=infinity.

infinity is not a number infinity is not a number infinity is not a number infinity is not a number infinity is not a number infinity is not a number infinity is not a number infinity is not a number infinity is NOT A NUMBER.

This is common knowledge.

>>5492091
Buzz words I slapped together to mock the OP for stating obvious shit.

>>5492097
You do not know what a number is. In many contexts infinity is used as a number. You only know real numbers because that's all you were taught by your middle school teacher. Please stop shitting up this board with your cretinous underaged ignorance.

>>5492102
Stop shitposting. You're not funny.

>>5492104
Calc 1-3.
Currently taking differential equations.

I'm more than qualified to tell the OP that he's fucking stupid.

>>5492104
in many contexts an imaginary number is used as a real number. That doesn't mean imaginaries are reals, or that you're invalidating the use of imaginaries by proving they aren't reals.

>>5492112
Thanks for confirming that your knowledge doesn't go beyond high school math. Do you even know what a proof is?

>>5492113
>in many contexts an imaginary number is used as a real number.
huehuehue

/sci/ should be replaced with /asp/

>>5492118
What does /sci/ have to do with asp vipers?

>>5492112
I think this guy is just an aether-style troll rather than an actual crackpot.

>>5492123
But he's right. There are plenty of number systems with an infinity.

>>5492121
/sci/ is so off-topic even the board name shouldn't be scientific.

>>5492135
That wasn't OP. OP is an obvious shitposter. However this doesn't justify more shitposting. Middle schoolers who scream "le infinity is not le number durrrrrrrrrrrrrr" are worse than OP because they seriously believe this shit and are spreading extreme anti-intellectualism, unwilling to admit their ignorance of higher math.

>>5492135
You're missing the point.

The point is that OP's use of infinity is retarded.

>>5492145
We all agree on that but if you are unable to explain why, then please refrain from shitposting.

>>5492113
>That doesn't mean imaginaries are reals
Let's define complex numbers: for all a ∈ R and b ∈ I, a+b ∈ C. R is constructed as always, let's construct I without referring to R, i.e. not as forall k ∈ R, k*i.
Let's start with the easy shit, natural imaginary numbers Ni. 0i ∈ Ni and if ni ∈ Ni then (Sn)i ∈ Ni, the principle of induction, etc.
Then imaginary integers Zi. The set of equivalence classes such that blah blah blah.
Then imaginary rationals Qi. The set of equivalence clases such that blah blah blah.
Then imaginary numbers I. The set of sequences such that blah blah blah.
Note that the construction was the same as that of reals.
Notice that C is isomorphic to R^2.
Notice that imaginary numbers taken as a set on their own are the real numbers.

>>5492204
Don't reply to obvious trolls.

>>5491878
It has everything to do with your post, all signifigantly determined infinitys were constructed pre our existance of any kind, also, psh using genitalia denomiters in physics-esq sciences

>>17445384
lol /fit/ is trying to physics

>>5492089
Logical as in we can't quantify it?

Please, tell me more about what you know of gravity

>>5492097
We don't do math on that level yet bro, that's like singularity physics

>>5492255
infinity is well understood and categorised by math.

we even have notation for all the different infinities.

>>5492261
Show me what the applicable equation of the word is please?

It's an infinite, it can be said with any other word inside enough of a set

So no you don't.

>>5492275
i would answer you, but your english isn't good enough for me to understand the question

>>5492279
Read
>>5492261
Then
>>5492275
And give a reasonable answer or accept defeat

>>5492291
i posted one of those, and read the other. i don't know what the question is. perhaps phrase it better?

i know quite a bit about how infinity is handled in math

>>5492299

>ctrl+f "one to one"
>0 of 0

Just explain the widely know infinity in terms the average human will understand:

Infinity is simply a one to one comparison of all the n∈N. Sine there is no supN, this is what is meant by "it goes on forever". However there are other one to one comparisons that exceed that of N, such as the elements in I ⊆ R.

>>5492299
What is the applicable equation of the word?...

What equation says 'this is how a word behaves with other words'

A word can be said with any other word, whats the equation? Although I guess every verb/adjective/ect would have different ones

Science is far from over imo

>>5492327
I won't even bother reading that post. The name of the poster already tells me that we're dealing with an edgy pseudo-intellectual underageb&.

>>5492327
>>5492329
>pretend moon speak troll

>>5492336

You didn't bother to read it, yet you bothered to write a reply. Aha, stay pleb and continue being a waste of human resource faggot.

>>5492345
Stay trolling 4chan, enjoying meaningless victories, and continue wasting your life.

>>5492327
Actually no- As soon as it compares to itself it is no longer infinite because it see's itself as whole, implying with precoursed end, so the fact it that in the moment it is self comparing it is actually dividing into another, which ofc is subject to the structure of the first- full relativity is a given, but non relativity is only implied(by the self examination & separation), and as such is it aquiring it's attributes from.... well a precognition of sorts only determined to be available by the previous infinity, which is nifty

>>5492357
>moonspeak

>>5492355

>I was trolling

Everything I said was valid.

>>5492357
However, this assumption is not correct, since an important property of these three types of EC suffices to account for a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. From C1, it follows that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent to the ultimate standard that determines the accuracy of any proposed grammar. Notice, incidentally, that the theory of syntactic features developed earlier appears to correlate rather closely with the traditional practice of grammarians. This suggests that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial is not subject to problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Suppose, for instance, that any associated supporting element delimits a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.

>>5492336
>>5492339
>>5492345
>>5492355
Internet flammers on /sci/ you're supposed to be grown up you know that?

>>5492363
>implying trolling is not valid

goes in all fields

quit posting in troll thread

>>5492381
Did you just do a "sage goes in all fields" post and forget to put sage in the field that actually does something?

>>5492384
fucking captcha

>>5492384
it's called irony

>>5492381
>>5492384
>>5492387

>>5492364
Well thats the point, that any further definition would take place within the preset
>From C1, it follows that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not quite equivalent to the ultimate standard that determines the ..
Well thats just to the standard of the state definition of what it is to be of a self recognizant structure, it's not in a gap of parasitic element it's fullt having to determine itself from a supposed boundry of whats beyond it's hardly determined state at that point and at that is it allowing for a parasitic expansion of something that is not quantifying a host and thus having to be in accord that its previous is whole as it is restructuring it to itself with fractions inevitably placed in different places but not in a chaotic manner as there is intention of continuance, but of course that is only do to the fact that it is a constant sub-context of identification that one is always looking to put fourth when something- of not whole but 'rolled up but with indeterminate thickness' and such of any length, which goes as far to note that it can exceed any definition implied by what is said by how it's answered, which counters your last point of any test being even capable in it's adaption format for such a thing as an 'answer'

... I think we could say this alot smoother with math... fucking words

>>5492425
, it's not in a gap of parasitic element, it's *fullt* having to determine itself

*typo* fully*

and coma in there^

>>5492425
>... I think we could say this alot smoother with math... fucking words

the being said, I'm more of a concept guy
>mysexcycaptcha

Archive anyone?

>>5491788
See: Cantor. There is an infinite hierarchy of infinities. The list of irrational numbers between 1 and 2 is infinity, but half of that between 2 and 4 (also infinity). Similarly, there are half as many even numbers as there are integers (which are, in turn, less than irrationals between 1 and 2), even though both are infinite. Cantor was so nuts about this that he genuinely believed that God was the set of all infinities- the "Absolute Infinite". (This definition is congruent with Goedel's Ontological Proof, too. On to something here; needs more investigation.)

Although infinity is just a symbol, like zero. (Symbol versus number: you can do the basic arithmetic operations on numbers, but not on symbols. ie dividing by zero, adding to infinity)

This is a fucking terrible thread

There are 3 basic places where infinity 'exists' in maths. Firstly, as a number/point in the extended real number line, the riemann sphere or other number systems, especially projective spaces.
Secondly, as Cardinal numbers which indicate the size of a set.
Thirdly, to indicate a process going on forever, like a limit to infinity

>>5492504
>There is an infinite hierarchy of infinities.

>Implying the highest is absolute subject to the lowest
Sounds like sentience

Calling that crazy??!?! Saying that the sum of all parts is the being of all parts and hence able to conduct anything?
What else could such an infallible god as has been written be?!
It doesnt mean we are of constant subject to it, it simply implies that it's nature afflicts what it would find to be of elegant expansion of previous constructs, the un-definitive hermaphroditic masturbator of invention so to speak

>>5492509
Then 1 & 3 bond to make the informational available of electrons which falls out into the 2 & 1 bond to state the structure which falls into the 3rd of constant state.
Just as an example

So your arguement is invalid

>>5491639

Just gunna leave this here... since we're talking about revolutionary bullshit and whatnot...

>mfw this thread

>>5491812
Leibniz's monads?

>>5492504
>implying you can't perform the basic arithmetic operations with zero
>imlying division as an operation on real numbers or any subset

>>5493287
Kind an after statement no?

>>5494775
well since it's application is words...
>.>"

>>5495970

Holy shit, as a math student I seriously thought /sci/ would have their math sorted out more.

Infinity in real analysis is different from the infinity of cardinalities. However, both concepts are well defined in mathematics (though different in different systems).
Firstly: >>5492112
This does not qualify you at all to argue about rigorous mathematics. Consider taking analysis before acting like a hotshot when talking about infinity. Yes, many constructions of the real numbers allow for an object named infinity. Most of them follow this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line


>>5492275
An application would be "The limit of the sequence 1, 2, 3 ...n as n tends to infinity." The best informal definition for something being infinite (in terms of reals) would be, "if you can choose a number, it is larger than it". <<This is an informalisation of the epsilon definition of an infinite limit.

I'm not going to bother talking about surreal and cardinalities at this point unless I feel like it later.

>>5491788
>each new infinity would be smaller than the previous

Do you even infinity?

>>5498222
Shut up, retard troll. Infinity is not a number. You should of learned this in grade school.

>>5498222
>claims to be a math student
>thinks infinity is a number

0/10

Infinity is the diameter of a circle that's also a line.

All squares are rectangles. Not all rectangles are squares.

>>5500265
mind = blown

>>5500265
Wouldn't that be zero?

>implying infinity is a number

>>5502464

Affine geometry.

>>5491788
What you mean is, "each new infinity would be larger than the previous". But infinity is not an attainable "value". Consider a set of axes, upon which are the line y=x, and the line y=2x.

For y=x, we say that the limit of y as x goes to infinity, is infinity.

For y=2x, we say that the limit of y as x goes to infinity, is infinity - though if we were to write out this limit in its parts, we would find it is the limit of 2 as x goes to infinity, multiplied by the limit of x as x goes to infinity, which might lead us to think that the limit of y as x goes to infinity, on this line, is 2infinity - although that does not make proper sense and is really just infinity.

For y=x, we might consider (x,y) -> (infinity, infinity). There is no point (infinity, infinity) - what this really means is that as x grows, y grows.
For y=2x, the same (not really valid) line of thought tells us that (x,y) -> (infinity, 2infinity) - and, what this really means is that as x grows, y grows twice as fast.

The coordinates do not represent an actual point. But considering this sort of limit as a point (or considering infinity as a number) can be helpful in understanding the concept, which may be why it is sometimes treated as such in education and the like.

In truth, one infinity is not "larger" or "smaller" than any other infinity. What could be described as "larger" or "smaller", is the rapidity (as a function progresses, as a set expands, etc.) of unbounded growth which we represent and consider as infinity.

>>5501311
Recall that a circle is the set of points equidistant from one other point. If the diameter of a circle is zero, then the "circle" is simply a point.

>>5502865
>on this line, is 2infinity - although that does not make proper sense and is really just infinity
>as a set expands

Dude infinity is a subject of shape then state

>Shape-State-Shape-Shape-State-Shape-Shape-State-State-Shape=Determinant causal or object
>pic

>>5492425
Let us continue to suppose that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is unspecified with respect to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts, we see that this selectionally introduced contextual feature is necessary to impose an interpretation on an important distinction in language use. Notice, incidentally, that the earlier discussion of deviance cannot be arbitrary in the extended c-command discussed in connection with it. It appears that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition raises serious doubts about a descriptive fact. It may be, then, that a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort is not to be considered in determining a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired utterance test.

>>5502921
>subset of English sentences (is) interesting on quite independent grounds (and) is....
Assuming

But that's not just the case, it's only selectionary is in the frame of known terms(as far as my knowledge goes) as when there is no pretext of context that can related to in the previously concluded and deemed 'whole' parts are initialized corelations in the brain in terms of natural frames of identicate existance of what can be a lifetime of occurances- which again to reinterate contaminates the orientators context as it's not immediately recognizable to the the premise- but that doesn't it's not there, as to get to your point about linguistic 'facts', have you asked them to re-phrase the subset in relation to a multileveled known structure?

But I mean this really get's back to how every must nueron knows where every other nueron is but just doesn't opperate in the same 'factory' and complies with it's weakness, so to speak

>>5503041
Srry
Assuming this 'Paired Utterance Test' Is now the subject we're expanding upon

It's only natural to think that language would succumb to its own definition when it relates to how the only thing 'defining' language is other language

Most true thing i have heard on here. Counter point the point does not excist.

>>5503063
lovely pic

>>5503041
On our assumptions, the natural general principle that will subsume this case appears to correlate rather closely with irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules. However, this assumption is not correct, since this selectionally introduced contextual feature is unspecified with respect to a descriptive fact. To provide a constituent structure for T(Z,K), this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features can be defined in such a way as to impose a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories.

Analogously, any associated supporting element is rather different from a parasitic gap construction. Nevertheless, a case of semigrammaticalness of a different sort raises serious doubts about the strong generative capacity of the theory.

>>5503063

>hairy legs

>>5503225
But it's not a matter of selectioning! The format clearly demonstrates that's a format applied to the set, as to say X can be 5^4x3/9, I assume that's what you're referencing by T(Z,K)- if you'd care to expand t'would be appreciated

And the fact that it's not always in pairs, that there's multiple control points only allowed on an expanded script set- also, you're saying "Gap Construction" as to say that, ofc imo, that these are self correlating structures, not so much parasitic and as symbiotic but it's only noted by your description that the host is rather out of tune of what the functioning elements are supposed to denote, let alone deriving a transparent outline open source, see X=ect^

Does the stingray with it's suckerfish acknowledge them? If it did would it do barrel rolls more often? That should be tried, make for some cool vids

>>5503250
For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, relational information is necessary to impose an interpretation on the strong generative capacity of the theory. Summarizing, then, we assume that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not affect the structure of the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.

Notice, incidentally, that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction raises serious doubts about a parasitic gap construction. It may be, then, that a descriptively adequate grammar is rather different from the traditional practice of grammarians. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that the descriptive power of the base component is unspecified with respect to the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

>>5503257
>For any transformation which is sufficiently diversified in application to be of any interest, relational information is necessary to impose an interpretation on the strong generative capacity of the theory. Summarizing, then, we assume that the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition does not affect the structure of the system of base rules exclusive of the lexicon.

Does the term "Recognize" mean nothing to you? An equation, although being entirely correct in it's definition of format, can still be said infinite ways in when given an area of expanse- but it will still say the the equation

2: Dude you're trying to locate a point on an X axis without applying a Y/Z Axis? duh?
And relating back to the first point, C O M P L E X symbols- Infinity is a shape before a function good sir and we are quite far into it being as we are

>>5503277
Pfft, wow. That was fun. >>5503257 >>5503225 >>5502921 >>5492364 here. Did you really not realize that I was just copy-pasting my replies from the Chomskybot?
>http://rubberducky.org/cgi-bin/chomsky.pl
I'm not sure what it says that you were replying seriously to computer-generated, grammatically correct gibberish, but it can't be good.

Also, whatever you're trying to say, it makes about as much sense as the Chomskybot.

>>5503257
>>5503277

>post #2
I recommend subjecting of a Set Utterance, 2nd complying with the firsts sub-deffintion.

Remind your subject that they are not speaking in terms of most obvious reference but to/of the AoE(to an extent)

>>5503294
That was some VIP level trolling, my dear friend. You really got him by his pseudo-intellectualism.

>>5503294
I enjoyed it, better head than you could've given, I was having difficulty referencing it but when it started giving a applications of broader scientific boundaries I almost thought I had a friend.

Care to keep posting them

OMG CAPTCHA IS
>oxceedki weeping
@_@

Also, his premise is flawed

>>5491793


Also, how do I tell my kid that 'infinity plus one' isn't a solid argument?

>>5491788

Infinity doesn't really exist. Infinity is a made up concept similar to time - it gives an explanation for something which our feeble human minds cannot comprehend.

>>5503384
Because it is a solid arguement, that one is the next in the series of infinitives

You can argue how saying that is extremely out of context to just saying infinite

>>5503384
Teach them about ordinal numbers. That's the right way to formalize the idea of "infinity plus one".

>>5492251
Who are you quoting?

>>5503585
>ordinal

Don't you mean cardinal?

>>5506019
No, ordinals generalize counting, while cardinals generalize size. Presumably, "infinity plus one" comes up in the context of "counting past infinity" — i.e., an ordered sequence of larger and larger numbers — so ordinal numbers are the right notion.

If they were talking about the size of some infinite collection, then you'd talk about cardinality.