Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 19 KB, 608x342, 1534450159492.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004363 No.10004363 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

how can infinity exist...

>> No.10004367

>>10004363

The same way nothing can exist.

>> No.10004369

>>10004363
infinity exists basically only as much as 1 or i exist

>> No.10004403

It doesn't. Its the needless noun based on the adjective "innumerable"

not to be confused with "unenumerable" or "enumerable"

If there is an innumerable quantity, that is saying the quantity isn't being counted for exactness. Like, the opportunities given to mankind to freely pay for their sins have been innumerable, but realistically are somewhere around 14 quadrillion back to back failed chances.

Values can be innumerably large, but not innumerably small, since the smallest count is just 0. This is in contrast to the idea that values can be infinitely small, which is a non-zero value, and even though thats what it is, infinity-tards insist there is no infinitely small value which can be added to 0.999... towards summing 1, and instead pretend 0 is infinitely small. Size is in relation to a presence of something, but 0 is the absence of something, therefore 0 is not infinitely small. Just as infinity cannot be enumerated towards reaching an absolute maximum, 1/infinity cannot be enumerated towards reaching 0.

Infinity is a dumb idea invented by hysterical autistics freaking out about not knowing when to stop counting and feeling like they need a requirement that in order to stop counting or justify counting to any arbitrarily large number, whatever large number that is counted mustn't be the largest number. You can count forever regardless if infinity exists or not, and in spite of infinity, all counts come to an end.

>> No.10004411

>>10004403
oh fuck another 0.999... != 1 retard

>> No.10004469

>>10004411
There is nothing more retardes than simultaneously believing in infinity but not infinitely small things.

I bet this is how you think infinity works:
>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,_,inf
>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,_,inf
>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,_,inf
You assume to be close to infinity on any given count, where it is the next potential largest value that will be bumped ahead even further if and only if a larger real count is made. "9 tending to infinity? But what of 10! 10 tending to infinity? But what of 11!"

Not how that works brainlet. All real values are 0 compared to infinity. There is no difference between 1 and infinity vs. [math]10^{568754278864334678^{256}}[/math] and infinity. Both values are equidistant from infinity. All values are equidistant from infinity. Tending to infinity NEVER reaches infinity, and tending to [math]\frac{1}{\infty}[/math] NEVER reaches 0.

N E V E R.

>> No.10004489

>>10004369
i've never seen a one before in real life, i want to one day, has anyone here ever seen one? one one

>> No.10004499

>>10004469
Technically negative infinity can't exist either unless the identity of infinity as a number is dropped. All values are equidistant from infinity, including negative values. [math]-8^{128^{128^{128}}} \text{ is no further from } +\infty \text{ than } +8^{128^{128^{128}}}[/math] which further provides for
[math]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} -1 = + \infty[/math]

Negative infinity only has relevance if infinity is explicitly a direction rather than a numerical object, thus negative infinity could be towards subbing negative numbers and positive infinity could be towards adding positive numbers - but if the admission holds true that infinity is no longer a numerical object, autismals worldwide will throw a tantrum.

>> No.10004520

>>10004499
corollary:
integral f(x) dx from -inf to inf = 0 for all f(x)

real helpful jackass

>> No.10004533

>>10004499
>5 is 2 away from 3 therefore 3-2 = 5
You're so dumb.

>> No.10004535
File: 97 KB, 1200x675, 3a1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004535

>>10004520
Seems like your problem for treating infinity with validity.

>> No.10004537

>>10004469
>I bet this is how you think infinity works:
Nice straw man. Care to make an actual argument?

>> No.10004543

>>10004533
[math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is equidistant from infinity when infinity is treated as having relation to numbers.

Every number is infinitely away from infinity.

>> No.10004566

>>10004543
Yes, so what? Negative infinity is also infinitely far from every number. Your argument rests on the obvious fallacy that if x is some distance from y then it must be the only number which is that distance from y. In fact, there are always multiple numbers some distance from y: y+|x-y| and y-|x-y|. Fucking brainlet.

>> No.10004572
File: 814 KB, 604x717, 1515548699937.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004572

>>10004537
the argument is


[math]\color{red}{\Huge{\text{NEVER EVER}}}[/math]

>> No.10004576

>>10004363
Infinity exists as a property of reality. Mathematics could not exist without this property existing. What mathematics has done is try to chase something that cannot be caught. It thinks numbers get bigger and bigger as they "approach infinity", and they are going in one direction.

This has lead to a deterministic world view, because time cannot be caught either. We are going in one direction through time, much like numbers approaching infinity.

Infinity is not a number. Zero is not a number. These are properties of numbers.

>> No.10004578

>>10004566
If all numbers are equidistant from infinity, as well as equidistant from negative infinity, then infinity and negative infinity are the same object.

>> No.10004581

>>10004535
no, it also fucks up definite integrals

def f(x) = { 0 for x<0, x>1; 1 for 0<x<1 }

integral f(x) dx from -inf to inf = integral from -inf to 0 + integral from 0 to 1 + integral from 1 to inf
= integral f(x) from 0 to 1 = 1

but your crap theorem also proves it's equal to 0 identically, which means your claim that -inf = inf is a contradiction, and by the principle of explosion now i have a proof that 0 = 1 and i can prove anything by dividing by 0=1

>> No.10004592 [DELETED] 

>>10004578
>If 3 is equidistant from 5 and 3. Then 5 and 3 are the same object
Are you incapable of rational thought?

>> No.10004597

>>10004578
>If 3 is equidistant from 5 and 1 then 5 and 1 are the same object
Are you incapable of rational thought?

>> No.10004600

>>10004572
So you have no argument, that's what I thought.

>> No.10004603

>>10004581
This is analytical extension of the concepts supporting infinity. Its hardly my own theorem. That you can do retarded shit that doesn't make sense and has no value to humanity while using infinity, has never been up for debate. infinity is worthless, and essentially yet ironically worth less than 0. a smaller impact on everything than 0, and reductio ad retardum in trying to justify presupposed merits of infinity.

>> No.10004616
File: 77 KB, 1000x1000, 1536476023960.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004616

>>10004597
You are referencing three numbers specifically. I am referencing all and any numbers. 3 is equidistant to 1 and 5, but 5 is not the same distance from 1 as it is from 3. 1 is equisistant to infinity, as 2 is to infinity, as -93773 is to infinity, as 469964236899653 is to infinity. In relation to infinity, all values are equidistant. In relation to 3, only 1 and 5 are equidistant at that range. 6 is not equidistant to 3 as 1 and 5 are.

Retard assuming others are retarded.

>> No.10004619

>>10004603
No one except for you suggested that numbers which are equidistant from the same number are equal, or that the limit of sums of -1 is positive infinity. You're only displaying your own retardation in not being able to correctly represent basic concepts.

>> No.10004620

>>10004616
Dumb frog

>> No.10004621

>>10004619
Uhhh.

Read the thread again until you understand it, or feel free to leave if you don't. Your commentary isn't worth anything.

>> No.10004626

>>10004616
>You are referencing three numbers specifically. I am referencing all and any numbers.
So what? What allows you to conclude that two numbers which are equidistant from all real numbers are equal?

>3 is equidistant to 1 and 5, but 5 is not the same distance from 1 as it is from 3.
So what? Two numbers are only equalif there is no distance between them.

>> No.10004630

>>10004603
well whoever thought up this nonsense should be curb stomped.

integral of e^(-a*x^2) from -infinity to infinity = sqrt(pi/a) is one of the most useful identities we have. in that identity, you can think of it as a limit where the limits of integration are from -c to c where as c gets bigger and bigger, you get closer and closer to getting the exact value for your integral. you can't get it exact without taking the limit as c gets infinitely big. that's what the concept of infinity is

playing mind tricks with saying inf = -inf by some verbal nonsense is counterproductive because it burns the whole thing down into nonsense

>> No.10004632

>>10004621
So you admit that you are misrepresenting math, since you have no argument.

>> No.10004645

>>10004363
There are infinite numbers between "1" and "2".

>> No.10004647

>>10004630
You stupid kike cuck, no one uses infinity for anything, ever, under any cirumstance, and has always been the case. What you assume to reference when (You) are talking about +inf and -inf are instead arbitrarily large real numbers. Christ on a cracker how fucking stupid do you need to be?

>> No.10004656

>>10004647
If one calculated the sum from n=1 to inf of 1/2^n using only large numbers, then it would be impossible to get 1.

>> No.10004660

>>10004647
oh great, now the /pol/tard outs himself

yes, anybody in math or physics uses infinity as limits for integration ALL THE TIME. much of the time it's just an approximation used because you can actually get an answer that isn't filled with nasty shit, you just get a nice answer like sqrt(pi/a) instead of horrendous error function thing

i'm absolutely certain you have no experience in math or physics, so you should go back to /pol/ and stop shitting up this place with cancer ideas

>> No.10004677

>>10004363

Think of it this way. Infinity is a concept. It's not a real number, but it does have properties. For example, some infinities are bigger than others.
Take for example the set of all natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ...}. This set has infinite cardinality. But then compare it to the set of all integers {..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...} This set's cardinality is at least twice the size of the set natural numbers. But then compare both of those to the set of all real numbers { -4, 0, pi, -3, 5/2, ...}. This set's cardinality is infinitely larger than that of the other two combined. But things get tricky when you go further and further into the abstract like when dealing with infinity. For each level of abstraction you go, you lose some structure. The same happens when you do, say, quaternion multiplication (which is 4d-vector multiplication) instead of normal multiplication. You lose the commutative property. Numberphile has a good video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISbJ9S0fzwY

>> No.10004679
File: 13 KB, 657x527, 1494486599769.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004679

>>10004656
Pssst....

Its impossible to get to infinity. Of course x/(x+1)^n doesn't sum 1. What the fuck do you think 0.999.... is for?

>> No.10004682

>>10004469
>infinitely small things
-inf

>> No.10004683 [DELETED] 

>>10004647
>For example, some infinities are bigger than others.
Impossible, infinity doesn't have a "size", it has no beginning and no end. You're trying to use it as a number again.

>> No.10004686

>>10004677
>For example, some infinities are bigger than others.
Impossible, infinity doesn't have a "size", it has no beginning and no end. You're trying to use it as a number again.

>> No.10004692

You guys are cool.

>> No.10004694
File: 28 KB, 488x463, retardClap.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004694

>>10004578
>infinity and negative infinity are the same object.

nothing could be further from the truth
you have literally done the largest error possible

>> No.10004695

>>10004686
wrong, look up Cantor’s diagonal slash

you know nothing about math

>> No.10004701

>>10004679
It's proven, you lose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series

>> No.10004704

>>10004686
It is well known that uncountably infinite sets are far larger than countably infinite sets.
There are different _kinds_ of infinity. And some ARE bigger than others, even if they're all infinite.

>> No.10004709

>>10004695
Infinite sets cannot exist. Sets have a beginning and end, which an infinite "set" cannot have.

Mathematicians know nothing about the concept of infinity.

>> No.10004711
File: 8 KB, 223x226, 1493005205406.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004711

>>10004694
Naw dude. There would have to be possibilities to sum infinity to have nonequidostant comparisons, but there aren't. -1000000000000 is not closer to or further from +infinity than 1 or +100000000000. If there are no sums to reach infinity, that includes summing negative numbers.

Put it more simply, how is -1 further from +infinity than +1 is? It isn't. Thus all negative numbers are as close to +infinity as any positive numbers.

Well, if you treat infinity like a number, anyway.

>> No.10004716

>>10004711
give it up retard

>> No.10004718

>>10004367
There's no nothing. In every part of the universe
every time particle annihilation takes place.

>> No.10004719

>>10004367
If I open my hand and ask what I am holding, you will reply with "nothing."

What demonstration can I perform to get you to reply "infinity"?

>> No.10004723
File: 81 KB, 600x709, 1487943069587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004723

>>10004716
Stay bootyblasted, brainlet

>> No.10004727

>>10004719
"how many points are there between this point A and some other point B?"

>> No.10004728

>>10004679
>Its impossible to get to infinity.

If by "get to" you mean "start at some finite number and iterate to infinity at linear time" then yes. But you can still have a set "already laid out" for you. For example the set {1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ...}. The sum of all the elements in this set is indeed exactly 2.
And 0.999... is exactly 1, also. Take the following:
x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1
But we started with x = 0.999...
Therefore, 0.999... = 1.
It makes sense intuitively too, because if you take 1/3 decimal and multiply by 3 you get 0.999...
Not to mention, the geometric series proves beyond a reasonable doubt that 0.999.. is also equal to 1. I can provide the proof for that as well, if you care to see it.

>> No.10004729

>>10004709
Sets are a collection of objects, nothing there about a beginning, end, or any kind of order.

>> No.10004731

>>10004723
stay uneducated and enjoy shitposting nonsense for fuel for whatever retarded cognitive dissonance you're cultivating

>> No.10004732

>>10004704
I'm afraid such a thing is impossible. You need to realise infinity has no beginning or end and therefore cannot have a size.

>> No.10004734

>>10004732
did you google "Cantor's diagonal slash" yet?

>> No.10004741

>>10004719
What is the cardinality of the set of all integers?

>> No.10004742

>>10004729
>nothing there about a beginning, end, or any kind of order.
That's what the sets are, the container of the collection of objects that separates them from other sets/objects.

>> No.10004745

Lol, there's people who think mathematical abstraction as the infinity of numbers in mathematics has to do with the real world

>> No.10004746

>>10004734
Cantor's concept of infinity is wrong.

>> No.10004747

>>10004746
prove it

>> No.10004752
File: 7 KB, 228x221, images.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004752

>>10004731
Stay retarded and keep pouring your efforts through a mesh basket and wondering why you have nothing in the end.

>> No.10004755

>>10004677
>But then compare it to the set of all integers {..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...} This set's cardinality is at least twice the size of the set natural numbers.
They have the same cardinality, as do the rationals. Have you never taken a real analysis class?

>> No.10004759

>>10004752
keep fetishizing whatever retard tier concept of "infinity" you have in your sick excuse for a brain

btw you keep saying "oh if you think of infinity as a number.... oh other people's concept of infinity is wrong...." and not saying what your oh-so-much-better-than-Cantor concept is

what is it then, fuckhead? i bet it's god. right?

>> No.10004760

>>10004732
>You need to realise infinity has no beginning or end and therefore cannot have a size.

I'll explain this in terms you can understand. You keep using the time analogy so consider this: something that does have a beginning but no end. Compare this with something that has a no beginning but does have an end. And compare that with something that has no beginning or end. Just because all are infinite doesn't mean that they don't have different sizes.
Clearly, you're no mathematician. But even *if* those mathematicians don't understand infinity as you claim they do, you have an even less chance of understanding infinity than them. You already demonstrated that you can't comprehend why 0.999.. = 1. Now you're saying that there's only one kind of infinity. Seriously, look at Cantor's diagnonal slash. It will blow your rationale right out of its safe space.

>> No.10004761

>>10004745
Mathematics requires infinity to work. If mathematics works in reality, what does that make reality?.

>> No.10004768

>>10004747
Because Cantor is turning infinity finite by trying to separate infinities in to comparable, finite "things" with a size and value.

Infinity does not "work" like this.

>> No.10004770

>>10004761
Do not mix math and physics. Physics gives an understanding of what is happening in the real world. In this case, mathematics is only a tool

>> No.10004771

>>10004759
Infinity is not a number. If you insist to use it, it is a direction. As a direction, negative infinity also has justification, whereas if infinity a number, the negative infinity would have no meaning.

So remember, its a direction on the numberline, not a numerical object with relation to numbers. It is important to define your limits and accuracies with real numbers.

>> No.10004773 [DELETED] 
File: 20 KB, 771x383, TIMESAND___xxefwef8o9ol8fwrget8o9ol8fwrgethjtryjh56br4ttihtyjh56br4hyruttihty486y8458iningn4ttihty486y8458ino9j.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004773

>>10004759
>>10004755
>{..., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
What number would you add to the number of naturals to get the number of integers? You would have to add infinity to itself whcih gives 2infinity, but by the absorptive properties of infinity 2infinity=infinity.
I made some definitions in my paper.
Proof of the Limits of Sine and Cosine at Infinity
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1809.0234

>> No.10004779

>>10004746
No it isn't. It's quite consistent. Cantor's diagonal argument poses a very good proof that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers. This proves that there are some infinite sets that have different properties than others. If you aren't going to provide a proof on the contrary, for example a proof by contradiction, then we're going to blow you off as talking out of your ass.

>> No.10004783

>>10004576
>>10004771
>infinity is not a number
>what is [math]\omega[/math]
>what is [math]\aleph_0[/math]
Brainlet high-schoolers

>> No.10004788

>>10004779
You passed a dead end sign to get where you are now. You're iterating over methods supporting infinity, which is far past the fact no one should give a shit about infinity. Once you entertain infinity, you entertain pure fiction. There's no dofference between higher math tards talking about deskind cuts and cauchy cantorness, than there is a child talking about flying in dreams while asleep at night. You are heavily disassociated from reality and anything of real world value, and you know this bullshit only serves as snakeoil when the sole method of making a living off it that specific knowledge teaching it, cheating the next generation as you had been cheated yourself. You're ultimately no better than a gangbanger criminal or indian telescammer.

>> No.10004792

>>10004770
Doesn't physics say that energy cannot be created (no beginning) or destroyed (no end)? Which means it is infinite.

>> No.10004794
File: 153 KB, 358x296, microcephaly.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004794

>>10004576
>Zero is not a number.

>> No.10004798

>>10004788
okay, you can go back to church and stop posting on 4chan, thanks, let the big boys take care of doing math

>> No.10004805

>>10004792
Jesus fckng christ. Where am I? Am I surrounded by the five-year-olds?

>> No.10004809
File: 111 KB, 1058x705, going.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004809

>>10004788
>which is far past the fact no one should give a shit about infinity.

Right, calculus is just shit.
Now I KNOW you're shitposting.

>Once you entertain infinity, you entertain pure fiction.

The SAME EXACT rhetoric was used on negative numbers. "It doesn't make sense!" "You don't see it in reality!" THEN it was used on imaginary/comblex numbers. Now we have the neat properties of quaternions and the ability to reliably rotate vectors free from gimbal lock. And AC circuits. Quite often this "useless maths" turns out to be extremely useful. The difference between you and an average sci/maths geek is that at least everyone else can appreciate the usefulness that the maths we ROUTINELY USE has already given us. You'd be the kind of person who argues that numbers are completely useless because they're intangible. You're too shortsighted to patterns. And you're too bullheaded to see the arithmetic because it doesn't conform to YOUR interpretation of how things SHOULD be.

>> No.10004811

>>10004727
>>10004741
Weasels.

>> No.10004815

>>10004779
>one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers
If your set has a beginning then it is not infinite. All sets have a beginning, therefore no sets are infinite.

>> No.10004818

>>10004794
It is the lack of a number you dimwit.

>> No.10004823

>>10004742
What does that have to do with what you're replying to?

>> No.10004824
File: 130 KB, 506x543, 1528303510527.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004824

>>10004809
You're just running your mouth with false justifications. Fuck off. Imaginary numbers were just as easily a secondary axis of a numbergraph and negatives justified subtraction. Infinity does nothing for anything else but itself. Infiniteniggers just use it to self-referentially justify its own existence. All real world calculus uses real limits, which you would know if you ever used calculus to solve a real problem rather just iterating over fantasy homework problems in textbooks.

You're so shit, you don't even fucking know it.

>> No.10004826
File: 782 KB, 753x449, lobotomy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004826

>>10004818

>> No.10004829

>>10004824
>All real world calculus uses real limits
false

clearly you have no experience in math or physics

>> No.10004830

>>10004768
How does that make them finite? You're not arguing with any logical deductions, just vague qualitative opinions.

>> No.10004831

>>10004818
0 is a number, you dimwit. Do you even know what numbers *are*?

>> No.10004833
File: 82 KB, 842x792, 1532406500037.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004833

>>10004829
>what are fourier transforms?

>> No.10004834

>>10004363
Moar liek how CAN'T infinity exist XD

>> No.10004837

>>10004815
>If your set has a beginning then it is not infinite.
The set of positive numbers is infinite and has a lowest member.

>All sets have a beginning
The set of negative integers has no lowest member.

>> No.10004841
File: 29 KB, 409x393, 3q2oqf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004841

>>10004824
>All real world calculus uses real limits

>> No.10004847

>>10004823
"Sets" are used to create axiomatically crafted order. Axioms can have concepts in them that have not be analysed with formal logic, which then leads to more illogical abstraction. Infinity is one of those concepts.

>> No.10004851

>>10004824
You're a complete fucking brainlet weeaboo scum. Neck urself. You don't know calculus and you don't know anything about engineering if you're ACTUALLY going to argue that limits to infinity and infinity don't pop up.

>> No.10004859
File: 35 KB, 200x200, 1528767049096.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004859

>>10004851
>t. Idk fourier transforms but heres some ad hominem because of how wrong you are and how right i am
[math]\tiny{\color{red}{\text{faggot}}}[/math]

>> No.10004860

>>10004847
That doesn't answer my question. What's illogical about any of this besides your own misrepresentations?

>> No.10004866

REEE NO GUISE IM RIGHT

look, math is wrong mmkay? cuz physicists say that "light" came before water, but i have a mathematical proof that water came before light!

pi = 3.14159.... decode that and you get:
>And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

>And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

bam math+science, you wrong! water older than light!

>> No.10004868

>>10004830
Does infinity have a beginning?

>> No.10004869

>>10004859
i do know fourier transforms, and that dude is correct, while you, on the other hand, are wrong.

>> No.10004870

>>10004847
>"Sets" are used to create axiomatically crafted order.
No, they're use to create axiomatically crafted containers. There's absolutely nothing about order.

>which then leads to more illogical abstraction. Infinity is one of those concepts.
Where's your proof for that? You're talking out of your ass here. Show the PROOF.

>> No.10004871

>>10004859
>t. thinks fourier transforms negate existence of infinite limits
Go ahead and say "fourier transforms," it literally has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

>> No.10004874
File: 30 KB, 311x429, 1527377973763.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004874

>>10004869

>> No.10004877

>>10004837
>has a lowest member
Which is?
>The set of negative integers has no lowest member.
What is its highest member?

>> No.10004880

>>10004860
Does infinity have a beginning?

>> No.10004881

>>10004868

What do you mean by "beginning"? If you're going to use such ambiguous terms you should clearly define them first. The set of all natural numbers "starts" with 1. But it still has infinite cardinality, just like the set of all integers.

>> No.10004883
File: 9 KB, 211x239, 1513971000563.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004883

>>10004871
What negates the existence of infinite limits are the finite results evaluated from them. What negates infinite limits is that infinity cannot be reached.
Infinity doesn't need to be disproven because it disproves itself by its own rules.

>> No.10004886

>>10004877
omfg you seriously are asking this

legit 50 IQ

>> No.10004895

>>10004881
>The set of all natural numbers "starts" with 1.
So there is a beginning, which is a finite property. Is that the concept of infinity you believe to be logical?

>> No.10004897

>>10004883
>What negates the existence of infinite limits are the finite results evaluated from them.

That's like saying "the existence of vectors negates itself because dot products can be evaluated from them. N-dimensional vectors aren't REAL!"

God, you're retarded. Infinity is a TOOL, you tool

>> No.10004898

>>10004886
Desperate dodging.

>> No.10004902

>>10004895
>Is that the concept of infinity you believe to be logical?
The cardinality of the set of natural numbers. Are you trying to say that the set of natural numbers has finite cardinality because its set "starts" with 1? If you are, I'm starting to think you're clinically insane.

>> No.10004911

>>10004883
>What negates the existence of infinite limits are the finite results evaluated from them
>t. never taken calculus

>> No.10004917

>>10004898
The set of negative integers does have a highest number. It is -1.

The set of all positive integers has a lowest number. It is 1.

Are you trying to say that neither of those sets has infinite cardinality either? If you're going to say that, then you'll have to prove its exact finite size. So exactly what is it? Go on, try. This should be entertaining as you writhe in your cognitive dissonance.

>> No.10004922

>>10004868
Whay does that even mean?

>> No.10004927

>>10004922
Obviously infinity must have no beginning if there is no boundary between what and what does not constitute infinity.

>> No.10004930

>>10004902
I'm saying that there aren't any infinite sets, it's impossible, because sets are finite by their nature.

>> No.10004932

>>10004927
that's a terrible way of describing infinity

>> No.10004941

>>10004834
This but unironically.
Dressing it up as you have means nothing to the truth of the matter.

>> No.10004944

>>10004932
Infinity is an absolute fiction. What does it matter how its described and whether you agree or not.

Hell, just leave it at that: infinity is fiction.

>> No.10004952
File: 96 KB, 500x380, its-all-so-tiresome-34354344.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004952

>>10004944
>i don't even know how infinity is defined in the specific context of a limit to infinity
>but it is a fiction nonetheless!
Pic related

>> No.10004953

>>10004917
>The set of negative integers does have a highest number. It is -1.

>The set of all positive integers has a lowest number. It is 1.
What about 0? Trying to create separation sneaky bitch?

>Are you trying to say that neither of those sets has infinite cardinality either?
"Infinite cardinality" doesn't make any sense, cardinality requires a beginning and an end, every step of the way. Infinity has no steps.

>> No.10004956

mods, can this guy be banned?

clearly not a good-faith poster

>> No.10004957

>>10004953
>What about 0? Trying to create separation sneaky bitch?
not a positive or negative integer

>> No.10004958

>>10004363
The problem with infinity is that it can't coexist with time, anyone with half a brain stem can see why this is.

>> No.10004959

>>10004930
>sets are finite by their nature

This is absolutely wrong. Sets are merely abstract containers, nothing more. They CAN have infinite size but still limited in other properties. The set of natural numbers, for example, contains all integers greater than 0. But it does not contain the negative numbers, 0 itself, or any transcendental numbers such as pi or e. You do not understand the properties of infinity. You keep thinking of it in terms of linear iterations and use terms like "beginning" and "end". This is not encompass all of the properties of infinity. Infinity is a representation, a concept, that describes a "number" (and I use that term lightly) higher than any natural number. It is better to think of it in terms of direction than in terms of if it is or isn't bounded. Because, as proved earlier in this thread, some unbounded infinities are "larger" than others. Want another example? Take for example a line. A line goes "infinitely" in one dimension. Take that to two dimensions and you have an infinite plane. An infinite plane can be thought of as a set of infinite lines. Take that to three dimensions and you get infinite volume. Again, this can be thought of as a set of infinite planes. In these terms, you can consider some infinities to be larger than others.

>> No.10004972

>>10004958
>The problem with infinity is that it can't coexist with time

Yes it can. A single second can be divided infinitely many times.

>> No.10004976

>>10004957
Is infinity a positive or negative integer?

>> No.10004984

>>10004363
There's no proof of an actual infinity existing.

>> No.10004985

>>10004489
god has seen a 1 through her third eye

>> No.10004986
File: 245 KB, 1063x1063, 1508010693769.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10004986

>>10004972
okay jimbo its time for your juicebox. no more muttering insanities to yourself. juice and then naptime.

>> No.10004991

>>10004976
neither

>> No.10005000
File: 287 KB, 405x412, 1306971373337.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10005000

>>10004986
What's the matter, can't refute my conjecture?

>> No.10005002 [DELETED] 

>>10004986
[math]\int_I\ dt=t/[math]
dumb frog poster

>> No.10005003

>>10004959
>contains all integers greater than 0.
So zero is less than 1, and greater than -1? And yet I thought zero was neither positive or negative?

>> No.10005007

>>10004976

Trick question. It's not an integer period.

>> No.10005010

>>10004991
Starting to sound like zero...

>> No.10005012

>>10004986
[math]\int_I\ dt=t_{elapsed}[/math]
where I is a finite interval of time
I'm sorry you don't have an education

>> No.10005014

>>10005007
So why is zero an integer and infinity not?

>> No.10005015
File: 27 KB, 599x337, EU0XMSV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10005015

>>10005003

>> No.10005016

>>10005010
0.5 is also not a positive or negative integer. does 0.5 = 0?

>> No.10005017

>>10004927
Gibberish.

>> No.10005018

>>10005014
because infinity is not a number. there are abstract concepts that are not numbers that "exist".

>> No.10005020

>>10005003
Do you even understand what the whole concept of negative/positive even is?
Zero is neither a negative or a positive number. The whole idea of positive and negative is defined in terms of zero. Negative numbers are numbers that are smaller than zero, and positive numbers are numbers that are bigger than zero. Since zero isn't bigger or smaller than itself, it's neither a negative or positive number. Asking if zero is positive or negative is like asking "are you younger or older [than yourself]?"

>> No.10005021

>>10005016
0.5 isn't an integer, but 0 is apparently.

>> No.10005024

>>10005018
Exactly. Sets are one such example.

>> No.10005027

>>10005018
Tell me the properties of infinity and zero that makes one a number, and the other not.

>> No.10005040

>>10005027

Zero can be reached from a finite number of finite increments, but infinity cannot.

>> No.10005047

>>10005020
Can you tell me a number smaller than zero?

>> No.10005050

>>10005021
Yes
>>10005024
Yup. And positive and negative infinities, countable versus uncountable infinities, and differentials, and irrational numbers, and complex numbers, etc etc etc.
>>10005027
Numbers are by definition finite quantities. You can't locate infinity on a number line. It's as simple as that. IF this confuses you, there is no hope and you will die an uneducated brainlet.

>> No.10005052

>>10005047
There is no number with smaller magnitude than zero. There are many numbers less that zero, like -6991, for example

>> No.10005053

>>10005000
It goes back to zeno's arrow paradox. That the flightpath of a fired arrow can be infinitely divided in its duration from bow to target, yet the arrow should move at all when infinite division implicates that there exist no sequence of divisible freeze-frames where motion of any kind has occurred, equivalent to watching a 10 hour youtube video of a single screenshot. Plenty of differenence reference points across the 10 hours, but no motion occurs - and instead of being 10 hours, it is instead eternity. Obviously, zero motion is not an option at the smallest division, else the arrow would have never hit the target.

>> No.10005060

>>10005050
>Numbers are by definition finite quantities. You can't locate infinity on a number line. It's as simple as that. IF this confuses you, there is no hope and you will die an uneducated brainlet.
this doesn't have much bearing on the village idiot's persistent claim that "infinity does not exist"

>> No.10005066

>>10005060
I only address one claim or question at a time. The question was why is 0 an integer and infinity not.

>> No.10005069

>>10005066
well infinity and negative infinity are perfectly fine members of the extended real numbers
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line

>> No.10005071

>>10005053

This is only true when the TIME duration of each increment is some constant. If the time between one iteration to another is nonlinear, then it can quite easily be done in finite time. Numberphile already covers this quite nicely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Z9UnWOJNY

>> No.10005073

>>10005053
Motion is going from one point to another point some nonzero distance away. You can divide a finite distance infinitely and still have motion between all points, since all points are a nonzero distance from each other. The "paradox" comes from not defining motion properly, it has little to do with infinity.

>> No.10005076

>>10005069
>extended real numbers
The word extended is very important here

>> No.10005091

>>10005076
and you'd agree that the extended real numbers are a simple, well-motivated, and well-defined extension of the real numbers, and that we often use them legitimately for things like taking integrals where the limits are -inf and inf, i presume?

>> No.10005095

>>10005091
>a simple, well-motivated, and well-defined extension of the real numbers, and that we often use them legitimately for things like taking integrals where the limits are -inf and inf, i presume?
I already agree that infinity is a real and useful concept.

>> No.10005117

>>10005040
Using the positive and negative sets of integers, please get to 0 from a positive or negative integer. You can't because neither set contains 0.

>> No.10005118

>>10005050
>Numbers are by definition finite quantities. You can't locate infinity on a number line. It's as simple as that. IF this confuses you, there is no hope and you will die an uneducated brainlet.
What quantity does zero have?

>> No.10005120

>>10005073
The paradox comes from zeno's brainletism. achilles and the tortoise is a paradox only relative to the arrow. The arrow postulates an incorrectness in Zeno to believe infinite frames of zero motion exist, where instead a smallest motion frame no matter how seemingly insignificant must be the truth; yet in achilles and the tortoise, achilles reaches the tortoise via [math]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^n}[/math] under the assumption that there was a final point where achilles caught the tortoise, requiring non-zero motion to have occurred, regardless of how insignificant it may have seemed, even though the true answer to achilles and the tortoise is that he never catches the tortoise, and Sum1/2^n never sums 1.

>> No.10005121

>>10005052
How can something be smaller than nothing?

>> No.10005131

>>10005120
There is no smallest frame of motion, just like there is no smallest positive number.

There is a final point in time at which Achilles catches the tortoise, but no final division of the space in which Achilles does so.

Neither is a paradox, and your resolutions are unnecessy.

>> No.10005133

Hello /finitefags/

What fields of math are safe against the trappings of the infinists? Geometry is safe. Logic is safe. What other fields still have hope?

>> No.10005159

>>10005131
Incorrect.

Achilles catching the tortoise and the arrow hitting the target "in time", to continue on as past events, means that any smallest divisions in the passage of time must have been non-zero, and that there are not infinitely many frames of motion in that timeframe. If they're instead bound in relation to their own local arbitrary timeframe encapsulating start to finish, then the implication of infinitely many zero-motion zero-time frames is analagous to the numberline. As no counting reaches infinity, or an end, neither would the arrow ever reach its target or achilles ever catch the tortoise.
In the case of 1/2^n and achilles, there doesn't even need to be a zero reference frame if there are no rules defining a limit to the amount of halvings. Even the most seemingly insignificant distance could be halved to lend an even more seemingly insignificant distance.

Even though it might make sense that 1/infinity ought to equal zero, you can't actually ever get to infinity to prove it, and any or every attempt to do so will always rationally produce an arbitrary real smallest number without any presupposed indication of what it is without first getting there.

>> No.10005198

>>10005117
>please get to 0 from a positive or negative integer
This is easy. Do it with a sum of two integers.
-1 + 1
or
-2 + 2
or
-3 + 3
...etc

>> No.10005223

>>10005159
>Achilles catching the tortoise and the arrow hitting the target "in time", to continue on as past events, means that any smallest divisions in the passage of time must have been non-zero

This is a non-sequitur. You could very easily represent the Achilles and the tortoise or the arrow hitting the target as an infinite sum of 1+1/2+1/4+1/8 + ....
Numberphile does that right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Z9UnWOJNY

>> No.10005231

>>10005159
>Achilles catching the tortoise and the arrow hitting the target "in time", to continue on as past events, means that any smallest divisions in the passage of time must have been non-zero
There are no smallest divisions.

>and that there are not infinitely many frames of motion in that timeframe.
Sure there are, a finite distance can be divided into an infinite amount of distances of nonzero length.

>As no counting reaches infinity, or an end, neither would the arrow ever reach its target or achilles ever catch the tortoise
If it takes you half as much time to count the next number as it did the previous one, then you will count through all the numbers in finite time. The fact that there is no final number to count does not imply that it would take infinite time to count all of them. You are just repeating the naive fallacy that leads to the paradox.

>Even though it might make sense that 1/infinity ought to equal zero, you can't actually ever get to infinity to prove it, and any or every attempt to do so will always rationally produce an arbitrary real smallest number without any presupposed indication of what it is without first getting there.
This is another naive baseless claim. Calculus is essentially about transforming an infinite amount of operations into a finite amount. So there is no need to cut off the amount of operations, you can analyze the whole infinite sum.

>> No.10005245

>>10005231
>The fact that there is no final number to count does not imply that it would take infinite time to count all of them.

This is the important thing he does not understand. If each iteration was some nonzero constant, he'd be correct in that it'd take "infinite time". But the time it takes to do each iteration under the xeno's paradox model, must be a function as well. And unfortunately for xeno, he is too naive to understand that the time it takes for each iteration is some linear function of time. The first iteration might take 1 second, but the second takes 1/2 second, and the next 1/4, and so on. And, as demonstrated before, the whole thing would be done in finite time. The "infinite number of steps" is operated on an "infinitely small increments" and this the two infinities "cancel each other out" to a finite quantity. He only sees one side of the picture.

>> No.10005610

>>10005223
>>10005231
>>10005245
Goddamn fucking NPCs. Fuck off. No one cares about your brainlet shit, get back to work.

>> No.10005631

>>10005610
>>>/pol/

>> No.10005880

>>10004728
based

>> No.10005909

it's more of a concept really. It may or may not exist in real life but that doesn't really matter. it does exist as an abstract concept, and a useful one as well.

there are loads of abstract concepts in math such as points, lines and stuff that have very useful applications.

>> No.10005917

>>10004709
what is set theory, who knows.

>> No.10005962

>>10004369
I've seen a one before...When I was looking down your sister's pussy....or was it a yeast infection?...I can't remember?

Sincerely,
Dr. Albert

>> No.10006470

>>10004363
>>10004705

>> No.10006602
File: 7 KB, 248x203, 1527062189769.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10006602

>>10005880
Not based, the nigger was ignored for being worse than retarded.

>> No.10006610
File: 3 KB, 280x272, cGIay9e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10006610

Infinitists don't believe in microscopes or microorganisms cause they're "too small to imagine, therefore must be indistinguishable from nothing at all"

only unimaginably small thing here is the brain of an infinityshitter.

>> No.10006628
File: 22 KB, 512x288, IMG_3792.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10006628

>i treat infinity as a number and not a concept and try to create arguments and proofs using it

>> No.10006633

>>10005917
>what is set theory
A waste of time to hide the truth of what mathematics reveals.

>> No.10006634

>>10006610
Are microscopes or microorganisms finite in their properties, or are they infinite?

>> No.10006639

>>10006633
and what is this truth you speak of, reverend?

>> No.10006652

>>10006639
Work it out yourself.

>> No.10006660

>>10006634
Smaller than you're willing to put the effort in to find out.

>> No.10006682

>>10006652
>bullshit theism detected

>> No.10006695

>>10006660
This isn't about imagination - infinity can't be imagined as some separate "thing", but it can be understood intrinsically as a logical necessity.

"Infinitists" are correct to accept infinity as a logical truth, but they have an incorrect conceptualisation of it. They use infinity as a number and a property at the same time. They give infinite mathematical objects a beginning, which is a finite property, and a beginning MUST have an end. Infinity has no beginning and no end.

"Finitists" are correct to reject such a concept of infinity used by "infinitists", but are wrong to deny infinity's realness as a fundamental logical truth. Infinity is a self-evident truth but everything you do to try and represent or describe it will be false.

>> No.10006709

>>10006695
retarded
>Infinity has no beginning and no end.
> Infinity is a self-evident truth but
then you say
> everything you do to try and represent or describe it will be false.
so you’re saying what you just said is false too? or is this a thinly veiled “i say so” argument?

>> No.10006711

>>10006682
Theism makes the same mistake as mathematicians do, they want their cake and eat it too.

Theism requires an infinite God creating a finite creation that it is separate from, and its creations have freewill and will be judged after a finite time on earth.

Like infinitists, they want an infinite thing (God) that is separate from another 'thing', i.e. humans. But this separation instantly means God is not infinite, God is not everything. In the same way that an infinite set having a beginning means it cannot be infinite.

>> No.10006719

>>10006709
Representation and description is useful, but you first have to treat "infinity" as a separate "thing", when it is the opposite, in order to try and describe or represent it.

Mathematics proves the infinite, but can never be separate from it.

>> No.10006725

>>10006719
why can’t we just be happy treating the lemniscate symbol as an element you add to the real numbers such that x<lemniscate for all other elements x?

>> No.10006736

>>10006725
Because you're treating infinity as some separate "thing" that you can stick on the end of something finite. And not only that, you stick it on only one end, when infinity has no beginning or ends.

>> No.10006753

>>10006736
>infinity has no beginning or end
This is a categorical error, like saying 1 has no beginning or end. Gibberish.

>> No.10006758

>>10006753
1 is a finite number, why would I say it has no beginning or end?

>> No.10006771

>>10006758
What does 1 having a beginning and end mean?

>> No.10006783

>>10006771
It means it is separate to other numbers.

>> No.10006797

>>10006736
no, i specifically referred to the symbol as the lemniscate to avoid the non-quantitative shit that people associate with the word "infinity"

in fact i'm sort of agreeing with you; forget whatever preconceived notions you have about some abstract "infinity" and the circle jerk can stop

just let +lemniscate and -lemniscate be two new elements we add to the real numbers s.t. +lemniscate > all other elements in the set
-lemniscate < all other elements in the set

just two symbols with well-defined properties. don't attach verbal crap to it

>> No.10006809

>>10006797
>just let +lemniscate and -lemniscate be two new elements we add to the real numbers s.t. +lemniscate > all other elements in the set
-lemniscate < all other elements in the set

Why wouldn't you add zero as a neutral infinity?

>> No.10006833

>>10006783
Infinity is separate to other numbers.

>> No.10006835

>>10006809
zero is already an element of the real numbers; you can't put the same thing into a set twice

>> No.10006837

>>10006797
this seems fishy, because it seems fishy to treat infinity as a single element

like, the limit of x/x^2 as x-> lemniscate...what distinguishes that from x/x over x^2/x...how do you compare the numerator and the denominator? i.e., if lemniscate > all other elements, then how do you compare lemniscate and lemniscate^2 or some other form of lemniscate?

>> No.10006846

>>10006833
Infinity is not a separate "thing".

>> No.10006850

>>10006846
Why?

>> No.10006852

>>10006835
It's defined as a number when it is infinite.

>> No.10006854

>>10006837
If you learned limits in high school, you would know the answer.

>> No.10006855

>>10006837
you compare the numerator and denominator in terms of limits

limit x/x^2 as x-> +lemniscate = limit 1/x as x-> +lemniscate

this means the same thing as:
"as x gets bigger and bigger, toward what value does 1/x approach?" and the answer is 0.

lemniscate^2 similarly could be considered like as:
where does x^2 approach as x bets bigger and bigger?
the answer is: it gets bigger and bigger; in fact it can be made bigger than any other number

so it approaches some number s.t. it's greater than any other element; hence it's equal to +lemniscate

the lemniscates are convenient notation for writing down a limit where it's not spelled out so elaborately

>> No.10006858

>>10006852
0 is a number, and it's not equal to +lemniscate or -lemniscate because e.g. 1>0, hence 0 != +lemniscate, similarly 0>-1 implies 0 != -lemniscate

>> No.10006866

>>10006850
Forgetting that atoms are bullshit, saying infinity is a separate 'thing' would be like saying that all atoms in existence that make up (it's defintitely made up) the 'universe' are separate to the 'universe' they make up.

Mathematics can never treat 'infinity' as a separate 'thing' to itself.

>> No.10006871

>>10006858
>1>0
Impossible, 0 is neutral. You can't be greater or lower than something has no value.

>> No.10006872

>>10006866
No it's not. You're confusing a set with its cardinality. A set does not have to contain it's cardinality as it's member. Are you done playing vague word association games? Are you ready to start doing math? Tell me when you are.

>> No.10006873

>>10006854
>>10006855
ok, that sounds reasonable, and thanks for the explanation, but i still have a fish treating infinity as a single element

cos(x) maps all elements of R to another element, right?
so shouldn't it map lemniscate to something?

>> No.10006875

>>10006873
Infinity is not an element of R.

>> No.10006876

>>10006871
well 2>1, that okay with you?

that implies
2-1 > 1-1
i.e.
1 > 0

no?

>> No.10006878

>>10006875
but that's what my question was about,
>just let +lemniscate and -lemniscate be two new elements we add to the real numbers
if this doesn't work then i'm back to having no idea what infinity is anymore

>> No.10006881

>>10006872
>A set does not have to contain it's cardinality as it's member.
It does whether it wants to or not.

>> No.10006883

>>10006878
That gives you extended R, not R.

>> No.10006884

>>10006876
>1-1
This isn't a valid calculation, you can't use the same number twice.

>> No.10006885

>>10006881
No.

>> No.10006887
File: 48 KB, 600x467, 001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10006887

>>10006884

>> No.10006888

>>10006885
You cannot contain something infinite.

>> No.10006890

>>10006888
An infinite set contains infinite members.

>> No.10006892

>>10006883
ok ok
so, 1/x does not map R -> R, but R -> extended R (and extended R -> extended R)?

>> No.10006893

>>10006878
well R is not the same as the set i defined, which would be R unioned with {-lemniscate, +lemniscate}, or for shorthand we could call it Rbar

cos(x) indeed maps R to R, not R to Rbar.
if you wanted to use cos(lemniscate) you'd need to define how you handle it...

cos(x) is typically defined as 1-x^2/2! + x^4/4! - x^6/6! +-+

then using my logic already that looks like 1 + (-lemniscate) + (+lemniscate) + (-lemniscate) +-+

1
1-lemniscate
1-lemniscate+lemniscate
...

then it has no well-defined limit

>> No.10006895

>>10006887
The set of real numbers only has one of each number - if you use one in a calculation, you can't use it again.

1 - 1 is impossible.

>> No.10006900

>>10006890
>An infinite set contains
An infinite container can't exist. Containers are finite.
>infinite members
You can't have an infinite 'amount' of something, because 'an amount of something' is finite.

>> No.10006903

>>10006895
either you failed out of kindergarten, you're mentally unhealthy, or you spent way too much time in a cult. which is it?

>> No.10006904

>>10006892
No, 1/0 and 1/infinity are undefined.

>> No.10006908

>>10006900
What is the cardinality of the set of positive integers?

>> No.10006911

>>10006908
aleph 0

>> No.10006913

>>10006911
So infinite sets exist.

>> No.10006915

>>10004469
lmao retard, learn analysis

>> No.10006917

>>10006903
>either you failed out of kindergarten, you're mentally unhealthy
That doesn't make much sense since school will make you mentally unhealthy the more you go to it.
>or you spent way too much time in a cult
Too lazy for that weird shit. Don't be surprised to find out that cults could be behind the mathematics that you believe.

Are you trying to say that in the set of real numbers, there is an infinite amount of each number in the set?

>> No.10006920

>>10006908
>>10006911
>>10006913
So you count to 0 first, then 1? How do you count to 0?

>> No.10006929

>>10006893
thank you, makes sense then

i guess with the sum, i think you have to look at limits
like for example, cos(x)/x ->0 as x-> lemniscate, but it's also 1/x - x/2 + x^3/4! + ...
so 0 - lemniscate + lemniscate - lemniscate ... depends on the limit i guess

>> No.10006943
File: 637 KB, 2308x1614, peano.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10006943

>>10006920
peano's axiom number 1:

>> No.10006944

>>10004403
>innumerable
Except that countable infinities are a thing.

>> No.10006956

>>10006943
But that's just ridiculous. 0 is a natural number because I say it is. You might as well say the decimal point is a natural number as well.

>> No.10006959

>>10006956
well in order to do mathematics, you need to do what peano did, and assume the existence of some number (he used 1 but in modern times most people use 0, but it doesn't matter).

without assuming the existence of some number, you can't make other numbers. so if you want numbers, you gotta start somewhere.

if you don't believe in that axiom, then fine, it's an abstract concept. but it's proven to be one of the most useful abstract concepts of all time

>> No.10006977
File: 814 KB, 1543x2128, 1535298826206.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10006977

i legitimately learned a lot in this thread

>> No.10007014

>>10006959
>well in order to do mathematics, you need to do what peano did, and assume the existence of some number (he used 1 but in modern times most people use 0, but it doesn't matter).
It does matter because 0 is not a number. If you have positive infinity, and negative infinity, you must also have neutral infinity, which is 0.

Separating infinities again, is wrong, but still useful. We can see -infinity, neutral infinity, and +infinity as the trinity of infinities that make everything work. 3 is the magic number of course.

>> No.10007030

>>10007014
>but it doesn't matte
he should have meant that it doesn't matter until you deal with stuff other than natural numbers

>It does matter because 0 is not a number
i'll call what i want a number. sometimes 0 is a number. you can't stop me. and this is a legitimate mathematical point btw.

>> No.10007039

>>10007030
So you disagree that 0 is infinitely neutral, in every set?

>> No.10007044

>>10007039
no, i don't disagree, and i also think 0 is very round but is shorter when flipped on its side
keep in mind i am a random who joined in this conversation

>> No.10007054

>>10007044
So you agree that if you have a negative infinity on one side, and positive infinity on another side, you need a neutral infinity in the middle?

And with 0 being that neutral infinity, it cannot be a number.

>> No.10007079

>>10004718
Math is not physics. Don't use your physical intuition or knowledge when thinking mathematically.

>> No.10007083

>>10007054
that makes sense to me, because it's a neutral infinity instead of a number

>> No.10007096

>>10007079
If the concepts mathematics uses are logically sound then it can tell you things about the physical world.

>> No.10007099

>>10007083
The next question to ask is what could neutral infinity be a representation of in reality?

>> No.10007122

Infinity is not a number if you want to entertain the idea that there ought to be a "Negative Infinity"

In best, infinity is neither positive or negative.

>> No.10007130

>>10007122
Indeed, and if you want to entertain the concept of 'negative infinity' or 'positive infinity', you need 'neutral infinity' to be the separation and connection of these opposite infinities.

Mathematics has deliberately been tampered with to obscure its true infinite nature.

>> No.10007153

>>10007130
taking the numberline of [math]\textbb{R}[/math] and plotting it on a graph, infinity would be the edge of a circle drawn all the way around the graph. No matter the direction (X+,X-,Y+,Y-,Z+,Z-), the direction from the absolute center (0,0,0) outward tends toward the singular (infinity). Sufficient negative numbers would be mathematicaly implied to reach towards the same infinity as sufficient positive numbers would, because its reaching towards the edge of the circle, and there is only one edge of a circle.

The idea of this circle represents an inverted point in respect to the (0,0,0) center, but all that is in the circle, positive, zero, and negative, compose the singular infinity in total.


More elaborately and extra-dimensionally, it might be better rationalized as infinity being abled to ignore the need of being a special circle and instead be a point connecting a line that is some extra-dimensional right angle from the center.

>> No.10007174
File: 27 KB, 1280x1280, 1280px-Simple_crossed_circle.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10007174

>>10007153

>> No.10007177

>>10007153
>No matter the direction (X+,X-,Y+,Y-,Z+,Z-), the direction from the absolute center (0,0,0) outward tends toward the singular (infinity)
What you're calling "absolute center" is just neutral infinity, which means there is no centre because a neutral infinity has no size/dimensions.

>> No.10007220

>>10007177
What i'm calling center is absolute zero.

0

0 is neither positive or negative, and is the center

Infinity is neither positive or negative, and is the edge.

Newton was a brainlet.

>> No.10007222

>>10007153
>0 is neither positive or negative, and is the center

How big is the "center"?

>> No.10007280

>>10004985
Who refers to god as a female

>> No.10007425

>>10007014
>>10007039
>>10007054
>>10007083
>>10007099
>>10007122
>>10007130
>>10007153
>>10007177
>>10007220
this is all a load of horse shit from wacko religious idiots or numerologist occultists

the concepts were clearly explained in these posts:
>>10006725
>lemnis
>>10006797
>>10006835
>>10006855
of course you didn't read them and instead went back to using verbal shit like the word "neutral" which is not a mathematical word in the sense you're using it.

you guys are all either being intentionally obtuse or you entertain some very persistent delusions. i am sorry that the verbal gibberish going on in your head has assigned the word "infinity" some mystical meaning, but that's horse shit. +lemniscate and -lemniscate are simply symbols mathematicians use to denote taking some limit -- this is all well defined and immune to your mental cancer you keep spewing.

>> No.10007489
File: 53 KB, 403x448, 1509935607777.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10007489

>>10007425
don't @ me, cocksucker

>> No.10007689

>>10007425
>triggered

Is 0 in +lemniscate or -lemniscate?

>> No.10008173

>>10004572
Ben?>

>> No.10008194

>>10004719
Ask how many dicks you've sucked.

>> No.10008214

>>10004709
>Sets have a beginning and end
wrong. a set is just any object that provably exists.

>> No.10008563

explain how its possible for [math]\frac{1}{\infty} = 0 [/math] to be false, yet [math]\frac{\mathbb{R}}{\infty} = 0 [/math] is simultaneously true.

Seems like it only makes sense to say absolutely no arithmetic is defined to work with infinity.

>> No.10008803

>>10007099
what if it represents a point or an instant
one single moment in time is a neutral infinity, or a single point with no volume, or a piece of paper that has no thickness

>> No.10008878

>>10004363
when you look up in the sky what do you see, you can't tell the what's the last point you're lookin at.

>> No.10008974

>>10008878
>up

>> No.10009494

>>10008803
I theorise that it represents consciousness.

>> No.10009606

>>10008214
>wrong. a set is just any object that provably exists.
To have an "object" you must separate it from other "objects", and separation requires a beginning and an end. That's what "sets" do.

>> No.10009649

>>10009606
-1 is separate from the positive integers, yet the positive integers have no end. You lose, crank.

>> No.10009666

>>10009649
>what is left end

>> No.10009668

>>10009649
> -1 is separate from the positive integers
Separated by what?

>> No.10009821

>>10009666
0.5 is separate from the integers, which have no beginning or end.

>> No.10009826

>>10009668
Separated by not being a positive integer, retard.

>> No.10009838

>>10009826
Doesn't that also mean they are connected?

>> No.10009962

>>10009838
you’re still spewing your cancer shit

tell us what your agenda is for real this time and quit dodging actually answering

>> No.10011743

>>10004363
it can appear to exist.....you can always slow down time

>> No.10012694

stupid question here: is it fair to say that countably infinite sets have either a beginning or end but not both, and that uncountably infinite sets have neither a beginning nor an end?

>> No.10012700

>>10004363
It doesn't exist and it's only porpuse is saving you the time of explaining someone how big the universe is

>> No.10012786

>>10005245
>infinity/infinity = a finite number
gonna be a yikes from me

>> No.10012870

>>10009962
>tell us what your agenda is
To expose the logical inconsistency of current mathematics in regards to its use/understanding of "infinity".

>> No.10012886

>>10012694
That works logically in the way you're using the word infinite, however I'd say a countable "infinite" set is really pseudo-infinite, because "countable" is a finite property.

>> No.10013360

>>10004363
how could it not?

>> No.10013450

>>10012694
no, consider all the integers, with no beginning or end

feel free to count them another way so that they have an end: 0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, 4, -4, 5, -5, 6, -6, 7, -7, 8, -8, 9, -9, i didn't need that many but it felt cool

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action