/sci/ - Science & Math

>infinity can be defined as the sum of all integers

>infinity can be defined as 0
>therefore, 0 = infinity
>QED lol

This makes 0 nothing, yet the sum of all possible values.

>>6892298
Look here Einstein, if I had an infinite amount of money in my bank it will make much more of a difference than having none.

>inb4 I share my money and it becomes useless, I won't share my money with girl who don't sex me unless im rich

>>6892307
You will never have an infinite amount of anything that physically exists. Thats the point.

Infinity is a concept, not a number or value.
Zero is a number.
Infinity != 7 - 7

>>6892311
Okay good point, if you win noble prise for you're theory track me down.

Maybe you share some money and I have threesome with girls and even u can join

>>6892315
>infinity is a concept
yes
Zero is the ONLY number that can describe something as indefinite as infinity. Its nothing, and everything, the sum of all possible values at the same time.

>>6892320
Holy shit, someone got it. Thanks man, bringing it to someone soon.

>>6892322
Can you post a picture of the diagram you want us to draw in your OP

>>6892327
This will take a moment, brb.

Sorry for quality.

No, infinity and zero are more like inverses. Any real number over infinity is zero. Infinity over any real number is infinity. Dividing a finite number by infinity to get zero is a key element of integral calculus for the past three centuries.

>>6892338
Thanks bro, I get you but lets see what others say as I'm no mathmatician

>>6892322
I'm still a little confused as to what your trying to say but i'll give it a guess.
Infinity is nothing? and we represent nothing with the number zero so Infinity = zero.

I'm trying to make the leap from Infinite to nothing though correct me if I'm wrong in what your saying.

>>6892344
Its not that infinity is nothing, its neutral. It has the same value as 0, and can be written so. 0 can be nothing, or infinity.

>>6892298
I'm a bit slow but you seem to care enough to answer previous questions, I was following your post til the last paragraph where you say draw lines at the beginning.

What are you getting at there.

>>6892343
are you retarded? what he says is:
>Let's define infinity as 0
>therefore we have proofed infinity = 0
>QED

>>6892348
Want your mind blown? Divide 0 by 0

>>6892356
you can't divide by 0 you fucktard

>>6892351
If infinity is all possible numbers added, you have to consider that all positives/Negatives cancel out,becoming 0. Its why infinity can not be reached, its endless

>>6892348
does this account for being able to order infinite sets?

Say the number of Values between 0 and 1 is less than the number of values between 0 and 2 because the first set excludes any values greater than 1.
Although i'm not entirely sure that is relevant to what you are trying to say.

>>6892298
>infinity can be defined as the sum of all integers, both negative and positive.
That's not a definition. The sum of all integers can be anything depending on the order of summation. You need to define "sum of all integers" coherently.

Let's define infinity as the limit that x goes to as it grows unbounded. This means that all numbers x are less than infinity.

Now let us assume that infinity is zero. This would mean that all numbers x are less than zero. But if x is positive then x is greater than zero. By contradiction we have proven that infinity is not zero.

>>6892361
I cant, because its a logical anomaly, but look at 0 as all possible numbers and youll only ever have 1 if all possible njmbers divide by themselves. This is the universe, man.

>>6892338
You start with the generally accepted concept of negative and positive infinity, but then say that infinity is the sum of positive and negative infinity and therefore infinity is zero. This is a kind of a circular reasoning. Is negative infinity and positive infinity each taken alone zero? And why even assume infinity has to be a sum of any particular set of numbers, negative, positive, or both? Your own reasoning is inconsistent.

>>6892361
>he's never broken a rule before.

>>6892361

>>6892369
It IS a contradiction. To logic, AND contemporary mathematics.

>>6892381
Yes, a contradiction means your assumptions are wrong. That's how proofs by contradiction work.

>>6892381
Its also the ONLY time it can happen.

>>6892385
It's very easy to make contradictions. This is certainly not the only time it can happen.

>>6892383
>assuming

i used logic, to prove that the logic maintains a single contradiction. 0

>>6892393
>i used logic, to prove that the logic maintains a single contradiction. 0
Using logic to show a contradiction means that you've shown an assumption to be false. This proves your hypothesis is inconsistent, not that it is correct.

>>6892385
so are you trying to say the sum of all numbers is the only infinity that equals zero? Because positive infinity and negative infinity will cancel out? how do you then get to infinity is neutral?

>>6892390
Ps you made an assumption, jackass

>>6892399
No, the assumption that infinity is zero is your assumption. Look at the original post.

>>6892398
The sum of all numbers is 0. Infinity is every number possible
you need to remember that infinity is infinity, nothing is nothing, theyre just both 0

>>6892393
If your argument contains a contradiction then it isn't valid. And if it's not valid it's not sound. Come back with a valid argument and then we can talk.

>>6892369
It's a circular definition. It's like saying ∞= +/- sigma i with i=1 and n=∞.

>>6892407
>The sum of all numbers is 0
The sum of all numbers is undefined. You need to coherently define what you mean by the sum of all numbers before you can say it equals anything.

>Infinity is every number possible
Infinity is not a number at all

>>6892411
>It's a circular definition.
How is it circular? What do you think ∞ means?

>>6892407
How do you account for the infinite number of values between 0 and 1 being less than the infinite number of values between 0 and 2 because the first set excludes any value greater than 1. i don't see how 0 > 0

>>6892408
The universe existing is a contradiction caused by a logical fluke with more than one answer. A paradox, 0.

>>6892419
Actually those sets have equal cardinality. They are both countably infinite. If you are going to try to teach a delusional person make sure you have your facts straight.

>>6892421
>The universe existing is a contradiction caused by a logical fluke with more than one answer.
How is the universe a contradiction?

>>6892425
Because it had a 1/infinite chance if existing. But without time, all infinite chances fired instantaneously. It was a single probability is an INFINITE range of them. Think about that.

>>6892425
you're standing on a beach and see a ray of sun on the water, everyone else sees a different ray of sun, no one is at the beach is there a ray of sun on the water?

>>6892433
>Because it had a 1/infinite chance if existing.
How did you calculate that? When did the universe not exist and what is the probability space?

>>6892433
1/0 .

>>6892418
What I'm saying is I'm in agreement with you that OP's reasoning is faulty. He or she's using infinity as the upper bound of a summation to define infinity.

>>6892442
No, its because there is NO upper bound. IT DOESNT EXIST

>>6892439
Yes if it's during the day and the sun is obscured by clouds. No if it's night or the sun is obscured by clouds.

>>6892447
Then it's not zero. QED

>>6892452
Its not zero as in nothing, is 0 as in nonexistent, neutral, everything. Infinity.

>>6892455
Everything that exists has a finite value. 0 is indefinite.

>I propose this
>sir that is a contradiction
>yes but a contradiction works in this case and only this case

aaaaand we're done

>>6892447
You saying that infinity is the sum of all positive and negative values doesn't make it so. If it were, how could you ascribe a positive or negative to it in the first as you do with your so-called proof? You also haven't addressed my earlier assertion that the relationship between zero and infinity are more like inverses. Using limits approaching infinity to find slope asymptotes for rational functions is one of many cases that presumes this kind of relationship.

Alright OP, since we have asserted that a contradiction is true (infinity is 0 and infinity is not 0), consider the following

Infinity is 0 AND infinity is not 0 is true

therefore, the statement "Infinity is 0 OR the OP is a huge faget" is true
we also know that Infinity is not 0
thus, OP is a huge faget

google principle of explosion

>>6892455
>>6892458
But that's not zero. Zero is a number and defined.

>>6892298
The doge does not into limits or calculus

>>6892459
Its because it is a logical contradiction, that, if youd apply yourself, youd get that the nonsense makes perfdct sense. Its the omly sensible thing about it.

divide 0/0 you get an answer: nothing, everything, and infinity. Thsts 0, 1, AND x. Its also pretty fucking contradictory.

>>6892448
The point i was trying to make people realize is that there is a different ray of sun on that water for everything that can see it every single atom all the way out to the edge of the universe has their own photons feeding them a different ray of sun but because light has mass as soon as the reflection from the water hits the edge of the universe the nothing because something because that light particle observed that nothing

>>6892469
Im defining infinity itself, not the counting to it..

>>6892469
Correct. f(x)=0 and f(x)=undefined are two very different results.

>>6892470
Apparently so

>>6892473
Take your meds

>>6892475
But you never defined infinity. Do it or leave.

>>6892484
Undefined, endless. 0.
before you say, but thats defined realize 0 has two meanings and im trying to tell you the other half.

>>6892467

hey OP deal with this

you can't just assert a contradiction and expect everything to be k

>>6892503
but it is k, were here because the impossible was made possible in a range of infinity. Its the greatest logical fluke ever because its so logical its illogical.

>>6892484
But if everything is inside the universe and nothing is outside then how is the universe expanding?

universe = universe + (0*∞/c^3)

>>6892494
>Undefined, endless. 0.
0 is neither undefined nor endless.

If you want to define 0 as meaning something else go ahead, but no one will understand what you're saying or care. Anyone can make up nonsense words.

>>6892511
>But if everything is inside the universe and nothing is outside then how is the universe expanding?There is no outside. That's what makes the universe different from a balloon.

>universe = universe + (0*∞/c^3)
That doesn't make sense.

>>6892511
Heres a good image. Try counting to infinity. Thats the universe expanding.

>>6892509

you misunderstand

if you assert a contradiction, anything can be proven to be true

so if this contradiction is true, all contradictions are true

we're done

everyone stop posting

>>6892512
0 is defined as nothing. Its undefined, as infinity.

>>6892514
exactly there is nothing there its value is zero so how does the universe make something out of nothing.
before you got on your computer today was this post a thing? it needed to be observed by something in order for it to be real

>>6892519
Quit assuming shit. I didnt make assumptions to reach ghis idea i used math.

>>6892524
Nothing, x=0, divides by itself until it becomes everything because you have to get that 0 is also Every possible number and every possible number divided by itself is a whole, 1.

>>6892307
if you had an infinite amount of money you will create an infinite degree of inflation thus rendering the value of your money to zero.

>mfw OP is right

>>6892539
Llllooolll
ill toss you a couple grand.

>>6892530
but 0/0 isnt a thing when you try and put nothing into x amount of groups all of those have a value of zero when you try and put nothing into no group, whats the point of the problem you are not doing anything

>>6892542
You are doing NOTHING and EVERYTHING (infinity)

>>6892542
0/0
1/1
2/2
ETC.

>>6892551
Soon as the answer became 1, something. Poof.

>>6892551
but when you divide by anything but zero you are putting into a group that requires a certain value(denominator) and when the numerator has no value left you add the groups up
but say 0 is described in an entirely different number system where its value is infinity then the answer to the problem is infinity convert that back to our number system and we get 0

Someone archive this so i can maintain my intellectual property.

>>6892556
Youre not dividing anything by 0. Youre dividing infinity (EVERYTHING) by 0. X/0 = 0/0

>>6892564
But if 0 = infinity then you're dividing infinity by infinity which gives you infinity

>>6892565
It gives you nothing, 0, everything, 0, and something, x

Infinite fuckin answers to the greatest question ever asked. The point. Something was inevitable.

>>6892568
Mind blowing.

Id appreciate this to be archived, but its gonna die. I hope someone understood, but ill be bringjng this to some higher ups.

Bump

>infinity is sum of all positive and negative numbers
>half infinity is -1/12
>mfw

Just realised when i meant everything, i meant 1, a whole. 0, x, and 1

Your reasoning is close to being completely sound but there is a hole in your logic.

What I'm getting out of your argument is this: When you take any number, real or complex, and add it to its additive inverse, i.e. the negative of it, you get 0. Thus, you can continue inductively and get that all of the numbers, what you call everything, is the same as 0.

This is perfectly correct, the problem I have with your reasoning is this, you say that infinity is everything. This is simply not true.

Infinity is the sum of all positive numbers or the sum of all negative numbers, subsequently multiplied by negative 1. Once you start combining negative and positive integers, your set either starts to decrease, or at the very lest, stops increasing monotonically.

Thus, you are getting a bound for the maximum amount that you can reach. Then, since you are thinking about all of the integers, you are talking about a sequence, (a one-to-one function from the natural numbers to the real numbers) and since the monotone convergence theorem says that a monotone sequence converges iff it is bounded, we have that the sequence you are talking about is convergent.

Thus your sequence converges to whatever the supremum of it is. Now we just have to find the supremum. Since you are talking about summing all of the integers, no matter what integer you pick, you will also have the negative of that integer in your sum, thus those two terms give you zero. Therefore, continuing inductively, you are getting an infinite summation of 0. Which as we know, is still 0. (0+0+0+.....+0 = 0). Thus the maximum value that your sequence can reach is 0. Therefore it converges to 0.

Infinity is a concept, it is everything positive OR everything negative multiplies by negative one. In the language of sequences. Convergence to infinity means that it grows without bound. However, you showed that your sequence converges to zero, thus it is bounded in the end and cannot continue to grow...

>>6892635
Exactly. Nothing is infinite. Think about that.

>>6892640
I mustve made a mistake somewhere, everything thst exists is finite.

>>6892298
WTF? Infinity does not equal the sum of all positive and negative integers

1 + -1 + 2 + -2 + 3 + -3 + ...
= (1 - 1) + (2 - 2) + (3 - 3) + ...
= 0

>>6892645
You still figured it out. My wording probs sucks, im a 21 yr old jobless layman, not a mathematician

>>6892655
You said infinity is the sum of all positive and negative integers. Which is obviously untrue. I don't see how I figured out your point.

>>6892640
Nothing can be reached by adding an infinite number of terms. However, those terms also have to each be nothing in order for them to add up to nothing.

Since I like cookies, I will put this in terms of cookies. I buy a cookie, then I buy another cookie, then I buy another one and I have 3 cookies. If I keep buying cookies and never eat them, then I will have an infinite number of cookies.

Eventually, I will not be able to resist the temptation anymore and I will start to eat the cookies. At this point, I no longer have the control to stop and I eat all of the cookies that I had. How many do I have now?

Here's the point that seems to be slipping by your grasp, To get infinity, you have to grow indefinitely either in the positive direction or in the negative direction. Once you start "growing" at the same rate in the positive and negative direction, you are not growing at all.

Or also, since infinity is a concept that can never be reached and 0 is a finite number that can be reached very easily. How can you try to argue that they are the same?

>>6892645
The sum of all positive and negative numbers is ill defined. Depending on how you group terms you can get that sequence to equal whatever number you want or not converge at all.

And OP is schizophrenic and/or retarded.

>>6892661
.... 0? The sum of all possible numbers is neutral
also, the thing about infinity is it doesnt converge, i suppose to 0, it just becomes indefinite, x
X = 0, x= x, 0 = 0. Its a concept of duality.

>>6892298
>op doesnt know that there is a positive infinity and negative infinity

>>6892679
The sum of all possible numbers is 0. It is not neutral, everything, or infinite. It is the FINITE number 0. You are either being a stubborn asshole, trolling, or you're just a dumbass that doesn't understand that infinite is exactly the opposite of finite.

>>6892671
Theyre not the same. Nothing is nothing, 0. Infinity is infinity, x. Infinity is also noghing. X=0. Its a foin, two sides yo

>>6892694
Ok so writing that with equality symbols, you are saying: 0=0, infinity = infinity, and x=x. Then you are saying infinity =0, which then implies x=0. How does any of that follow?

>>6892694
Also, the reason infinity is nothing is because it aint there, rendering it by nonexistence alone, 0.

>>6892711
Also, since you are trying to prove infinity-0, and you used that assumption in your 'proof', you have circular, and thus completely false proof...

>>6892713
Infinity is there, we just can't reach it. It's like a little kid trying to reach for the cookies mom put on top of the cabinets. 0 can be reached by taking 1-1. Thus if you can reach nothing and not reach everything, nothing is not everything.

>>6892716
Nothing is 0 in definite form. Infinity is 0 in indefinite form of x. Do you still not understand?

>>6892298
>this thread

10 - infinity = 10

holy chit op

>>6892718
Infinity as a value is everything, including nothing.

its 0, 1, and x. X is anything between nothing and everyhjng.

>>6892338

Are you also sorry about the low quality of your arguments?

>>6892729
No sir, because you havent read the thread.
move along, big kids are talking.

>>6892298
Two lines on a graph. One with a gradient of infinity (x=0) and one with a gradient of 0 (y=0). The twl lines look pretty different to me...

>>6892725
Infinity does not have a value, that's the whole point of infinity. Infinity does not include nothing, it is greater than nothing. It is, in fact, greater than everything.

You are basically saying that because you get nothing by adding nothing to itself an infinite number of times, infinity is nothing. This is not true, an infinite amount of nothing is still nothing. This does not show that an infinite amount of ones is nothing.

You cannot be between nothing and everything. By definition of the word everything, everything would include x.

Your main problem is that you are trying to use the literary meaning of the words nothing and everything to show things about the mathematical meaning of those words. That's why math books always start by defining concepts first.

>>6892298
Two lines on a graph. One with a gradient of infinity (x=0) and one with a gradient of 0 (y=0). The two lines look pretty different to me...

>>6892734
think of it as 0 when nothing
1 as a whole, something
x as infinity
Thank you, and sorry for breaking your concept of mathematics.

>>6892298
There's no pragmatic quality to contemplating infinity. 0 is non existent, as nothing itself exists.

>>6892739

>>6892740
Infinity doesnt exist outside of concept, until it becomes nothing, something, or everything.

Wait... You usually ascribe a sign to infinity. My understanding is, that infinity represents a motion which never stops, either in the positive or negative direction. Usually you can ascribe a unique value to a variable when you dump something into functions argument, where as infinity is the conceptual notion of the variable moving forever in one of two directions.

Sure, the infinite sum of real numbers starting from negative infinity to positive infinity is zero, but that sure as hell is not infinity itself. That's a circular definition.

>>6892739
So you're saying to give infinity the value x? Then add 0 + 1 + x and that that gives me 0 again?

Amazing pseudophilosopjhy with no real world applications. >>6892747 Infinity's stable and unwavering, me contemplating its existence as anything else isn't worth my time.

>>6892750
That concept of infinity is limited to x, an indefinite variable. But it DEFINITELY has a value of neutral.

I guess you could say infinity, in the numeric sense would be 0 x 1, might as well just say 0.

>>6892757
Nah, you can't ascribe a unique value to infinity. That definitely defeats it's purpose, and is exactly what you've done. Like I said, it is more like defining a direction to unending motion.

If I walk forever in a certain direction, I could be going anywhere, but I'm sure as hell not going nowhere.

Oh well, troll thread if I've ever seen one.

>>6892760
but wouldnt you walk all the way around the world until youre standng in the same spot?

>>6892760
Incremental increase does not equal infinity. Forever contains all time.

Thats what im getting at.

>>6892768
That just says that walking in a circle is periodic. It tells you nothing about what happens when you walk forever in a straight line.

>>6892775
Youre not walking in a straight line. Its curved. Also, you start at 0, once you pass 0 again, youve made 1 full revolution. Think about that.

>>6892768
Using the earth to represent a number line isn't abstract enough to really be of any mathematical utility. What if I launched a rocket into space and it never stopped? Now what?

>>6892770
Explain more. Infinity does not contain the entire set of real numbers.

>>6892784
It goes on forever, like walking would. Thats x. Thats also not relevant right now.

>>6892787
You tried to define infinity as the sum of two vectors in your original post though. How is that any different?

>>6892784
Yes it does.

>>6892784
But 1+1+1+1+1... is an infinite incremental increase, it leads to infinity. Infinity already was before the

This is absolute gold, I mean.. wow

>>6892783
Yes, that's exactly my point. Reaching the same point after making one full revolution is the definition of a periodic function. A periodic function is not monotone. A straight line is not periodic. Thus if you walk in a straight line into space for an infinite amount of time, you are not walking to the same place as walking around a track for an infinite amount of time.

>>6892790
How is that possible if you can assign a sign to infinity?

If infinity contained the set of all real numbers, then wouldn't negative infinity be the equivalent of positive infinity?

>>6892298
infinity is a theory not a number so your argument of a infinity as a number is pointless.

>>6892800
elaboration of my point
infinity is the concept of lacking limits, 0 is limited to the concept of nothing. 0 can't be more than nothing therefore it can't be limitless.

>>6892797
Gee, i dunno, how is 1 possible if you can assign a sign to 1?

>>6892793
Right, I'm not saying it is incremental increase, but it is generally used to denote a limitless value. The limitless value can be either incredibly large or incredibly small, and thus also has a direction, similar to an incremental change. An incremental increase or decrease is merely a convenient heuristic for infinity.

>>6892789
Infinity is 0, nothing, where you started, x, as something, anything, thats you in motion, and 1, everything when infinity finally becomes nothing again.

How can i better explain this.. we were at 0, before the big bang., the universe goes poof, as x goes from 0 to 1. Were increasing in x, going, accelerating. Fuck knows what happens at convergence weve never been able to count to "everything," but we started at 0, right? Poof. Nothinh again.

>>6892797
Put it like this, 0 doesn't exist because zero is still an existent value. When I speak of left and right, the division between left and right is still a thing, i.e. there's no real non-relative negative. , it contains all left and right as an infinite line.

>>6892807
Thinking 0 is just nothing, oh ho ho
nothing was something. Nothing was everything.

>>6892815
elaborate

>>6892298

If a definition is wrong, one will reach wrong conclusions using that definition. That's exactly what OP did here. Infinity is not everything, infinity is continuing in one direction forever. Basically, OP is either a complete retard or a massive troll.

>>6892820
this

>>6892818
Nothing, 0, as something, x, divided, into everything, 1. So nothing exists, follow?
thats all there was before the universe.


nothing

>>6892808
But one does not contain the set of all real numbers. How does this prove anything?

>>6892824
Gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.

>>6892824
Whats nothing, divided by infinity? 0/x

>>6892811
But a cycle is periodic and thus not monotone. I'm curious to see how you answer this one:

Given the interval (0,1), there exists an infinite number of rational numbers in that interval correct? Thus if you take the sum of those rational numbers, you get infinity. However, picking any other two rational numbers in that interval, for example, (0.4, 0.5) there is also an infinite number of irrational numbers in between those. Thus we have an even larger infinity when we include those in the sum.

Try using logic to tell me what happens when we take the interval (-1,1). Do you get 0?

>>6892829
x / x
0 / 0 = nothing, infinitely
1 / 1 = 1, the universe Poof.
all it took.

>>6892825
If I have one man standing to the left of me, his right is my left. Therefore can it be said that left is truly left? Infinity contains both. Done.

>>6892834
aand thread hidden

>>6892833
0 is now x, instead of 1. But that makes more sense.

>>6892836
The right side of his body is to your left, but his right is still your right. Try again

>>6892841
elaborate please, I think you may be starting to turn me into a beleiver

>>6892834
if that is your argument you should just stop

>>6892362
>you have to consider that all positives/Negatives cancel out,becoming 0

But that's wrong. The sum of all integers doesn't converge.

>>6892851
Nothing is -1, everything is 1
x or 0 is the process of infinity, x is whatever happens inbetween.
Add nothing and everything, you get infinity, 0
divide nothing by infinity you get x

>>6892865
Holy shit. Lol

>>6892865
nothing is not -1 though

Whats infinity divided by infinity?

>>6892865
if "everything" is = 1 then -1 is the "inverse of everything".

>>6892881
one

>>6892882
Thats correct, nothing can be considered part of the whole.

>>6892865
For a while I thought you were a troll, now I see you are just misguided. Nothing is -1? No, nothing is zero. That's the assertion that you kept making to start off your previous arguments. Add nothing to infinity and you get infinity. Let me try to state this using your writing style.

Everything is the sum of all positive and negative numbers. So everything is nothing. Nothing is not a positive number. Infinity is the sum of all positive numbers. So infinity is not nothing. Follow?

>>6892865
>this is your calc 1
>this is your calc 1 on meth

>>6892885
infinity can be anything. (1+1+1+...+1) / (1+2+3...+n) n->inf is not one but both are infinite number sequences.

>>6892885
Bingo bango bongo

>>6892882
and the inverse is unique according to the field axioms. Then you are saying that everything is actually just one value. That doesn't even wo

>>6892888
Yes, i understand now. Big mistake

>>6892298
learn calculus, you are a dumbass

>>6892888
Right, so keeping that infinity is x, nothing is 0
everything is 1

The inverse of everything divides itself to become everything, but all there is is nothing
nothing, yet everything divides itself by infinity until it becomes something

-1x -1 = 1
1 / infinity = universe, soon as x becomes 1

>>6892933
>nothing is 0
>everything is 1

dat binary doe

Hey OP, what is infinity, and what is 0? You keep throwing these words around without any sort of rigorous definition. And what sort of number system are we working with?

>>6892298
Infinity exists regardless of a zero....
Jeez.... 0 is just a reference point.

>>6892298

This thread is shit , Im taking over :


.999999999 = 1

1+2+3+4+....= -1/12

let me show you infinity in a simple way.

1 + 6


although the answer is pretty clear, it is not show, still it popped up in your head.

think of infinity as intelligence, which is not thought, because thoughts can be show, so there are part of our 3d world. Just because you can't see throu a skull and tissue does not mean there is nothing moving there. But the sum of it's parts creates infinity.

an other example

X walks from his house to the mall.
It's a straight walk, no one around and he meets no one on his way. He leaves at 1.15 am.
When he opens tries to open the door of the mall, it's 1.45 am.


Even it is no quest for you to find out how long it took him to get there, it easy for you to see.
You know something that isn't there to observe in a physical manner. It's the sum of its part that help you to find the 'hidden' truth.

I hope this helps you

>>6892298
Inf is a point in extended c on the riemann sphere

/thread , now go home kids

>>6893069
Dude. You have to be running out of drugs by now.

>>6893069
I remember when Aether posted this kind of shit here daily.

>>6892298
fuck off pls tripfag, your ideas are retarded and so are you.

>>6893069
please post more

Newfags, I copied that from the thread about imagining 4 dimensions but substituted another dimension with infinity.