[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 577 KB, 1600x1200, ayyy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10009380 No.10009380 [Reply] [Original]

Yesterday, I was really tired and when I went to sleep in my sleep I realized, that something was off about or maths. Especially about the definition of the infinity. The thing is that infinite is actually not an infinite value if you put infinity in relation to something else.

Lets give you a few examples:
As we know, gravity can slow timespace, making basically people near blackhole slower than people on the outside of the galaxy.

Now imagine we developed a way to move to the event horizon and back of the blackhole.
You put a machine outside of blackhole to count numbers, like 1 each second.
You move to the event horizon and back. Outside infinite amount of time has passed. What number will the machine show?

Second example: You have 2 galaxies of same size with blackhole of the same size. One person moves to the event horizon of one galaxy and stays there for 1 hour. Other one to the another galaxy and stays there exactly the same time.

Techincally, for both, infinite time outside has passed. But will they be able to meet each other because they exist in a single timeline or no because moving out of one gravity field means you move out of the timeline?

Now a third example: You just fly out of your galaxy and then back there. Did you exit your timeline and infinite amount of time has passed since you were not related to that system?

What am I leading up to: pur understanding of infinity is lackluster. There shouldn't be infinity in our world, not as the way we understand it but as another plane, another dimension of numbers that count normally like 1, -1, i and stuff like that but in other direction and we are all connected over it.
This means that dividing by zero must give us a proper result, similar to how people figured out that square root of negatives equals i.

>> No.10009385
File: 3 KB, 635x223, r8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10009385

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity
An unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.

>> No.10009461

>>10009380
>You move to the event horizon and back
You don't come back from the event horizon

>> No.10009578

>>10009461
Assumingly you could

>> No.10009596

>>10009385
>unbounded quantity
Undefined.

>> No.10009603

Time is relative and not actually all that important, it's merely a concept to explain change of state or location.

There's been a lot of retarded divide be zero and infinity threads recently.

>> No.10009608

>>10009603
Is 0 not somewhat infinite?

>> No.10009621

>>10009596
breaks any definition
'tis the nature of the beast

>> No.10009629

>>10009621
A quantity can't be unbounded - oxymoron.

>> No.10009680

>>10009608
I guess if you took too much LSD, yeah sure...

>> No.10009688

>>10009680
0 = neutral infintiy

Prove me wrong.

>> No.10009692

>>10009629
>breaks any definition
>'tis the nature of the beast
did i fucking stammer

>> No.10009698

>>10009692
>breaks any definition
>'tis the nature of the beast
Why are you trying to define 'it' then? Trying to give the illusion that what you're trying to refer to actually exists?

>> No.10009700

>>10009688
5 = semi neutral infinity

Prove me wrong.

>> No.10009704

>>10009700
>semi neutral
Can only have infinite neutrality.

>> No.10009708
File: 62 KB, 620x390, LogicalFallacy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10009708

>>10009688

>> No.10009710

>>10009698
>you're trying
projecting a bit?

>> No.10009713

>>10009380
Your first example is somewhat ridiculous. When people say "what if" with reference to impossible things like crossing the event horizon or going faster than the speed of light, whatever logic follows is meaningless because it's fundamentally impossible - no conclusions about math can derive from such an argument.

>> No.10009715

>>10009708
It's a self-evident truth.

If you have positive infinity and negative infinity, then you must have neutral infinity, otherwise positive and negative can't be different.

>> No.10009717

>>10009710
Yes.

>> No.10009719

>>10009704
is that supposed to be a proof?

>> No.10009721

>>10009715
What's neutral 1? You have positive 1 and negative 1, so where's neutral 1? Otherwise positive and negative can't be different.

>> No.10009724

>>10009719
Only 0 can be neutral.

>> No.10009726

>>10009721
>What's neutral 1?
No such thing. Zero is neutral infinity. Zero is not a number. Numbers cannot be neutral.

>> No.10009729

>>10009715
Neutral infinity is "NaN", the result of 1/0. You might want to say 1/0 is infinity, but... is that a positive infinity or a negative infinity? It depends on the sign of the zero, doesn't it? Since a positive divided by a positive is a positive, and by a negative is a negative. But zero isn't positive or negative. You can't divide by it. The answer is NaN.

>> No.10009731

>>10009729
Zero isn't a number so of course you can't use it in a calculation.

>> No.10009739

>>10009724
proof?

>>10009726
>Zero is not a number.
proof?

>> No.10009743

>>10009739
>proof?
Name all the "numbers" that are neither positive or negative.

>Zero is not a number.
>proof?
Because it is infinite.

>> No.10009745

>>10009713
Well the same way I can see infinity as impossible since we will never be able to count to infinity so infinity doesn't exist with that logic
>>10009721
A 1 that lies between -1 and +1, go figure it out yourself

>> No.10009746

>>10009743
>Name all the "numbers" that are neither positive or negative.
unsigned 1, 2, 3, etc.

>Because it is infinite
define infinite

>> No.10009751

>>10009746
>unsigned 1, 2, 3, etc.
Well this means there is a negative unsigned 1,2,3 etc. and we came back to the point 0 again. If you want a neutral 1,2,3 then there will be an opposite neutral -1,-2,-3

>> No.10009758

>>10009746
>unsigned 1, 2, 3, etc.
You sure those aren't positive?

>define infinite
No beginning/end/separation.

>> No.10009759

>>10009751
>>10009726
You are getting it wrong. Who told you that there can only be positive and negative numbers like -1 and +1? What if they have colors like color charges in quantum mechanics and we have groups of 3 or more numbers like
red 1
green 1
blue 1

>> No.10009762

>>10009751
>this means there is a negative unsigned 1,2,3
I don't think you know what "unsigned" means. If there can be a negative unsigned 3 then there can be a negative 0

>>10009758
>You sure those aren't positive?
yes.
>No beginning/end/separation.
so, every number is infinite? got it.

>> No.10009766

>>10009759
>red 1
>green 1
>blue 1
Do these represent different quantities or not? If they do, they are not neutral.

>> No.10009767

>>10009762
No, there can't be negative 0 because zero is the convergence point of all numbers, be it positive, negative, assigned, unassigned, real or imaginary, they all converge at zero from all planes and dimensions. Zero is zero. It's singular, there can't be multiple different zeros.

>> No.10009768

>>10009578
>If you could break the rules what would happen
Nothing relevant to reality?

>> No.10009772

>>10009766
You can't get neutral 1, because sum of -1 and +1, or in this case sum of all colors will equal zero.
Neutral means you cancel out both, + and -, so by your logic zero is every possible neutral number.
Neutral 1 is zero, neutral 2 is zero, neutral n is zero and neutral n+1 is zero too.

>> No.10009779

>>10009767
...yes, exactly, just like there can't be negative unsigned numbers... damn you're slow

>> No.10009783

>>10009762
>yes.
So 1 = 0, 2 = 0, 3 = 0?

>so, every number is infinite? got it.
Ultimately, but they cease to be numbers then. Representing them finitely is just more practical.

>> No.10009795

>>10009783
>So 1 = 0, 2 = 0, 3 = 0?
no?
>Ultimately, but they cease to be numbers then.
utterly dubious handwaving. I'm out

>> No.10009796

>>10009779
Which leads to my point that all unassigned numbers equal zero as I mentioned above.

>> No.10009798

>>10009772
>so by your logic zero is every possible neutral number.
>Neutral 1 is zero, neutral 2 is zero, neutral n is zero and neutral n+1 is zero too.
My logic states that you can't have neutral numbers, numbers don't work by being neutral.

It then follows that zero cannot be a number. Zero being neutral infinity fits perfectly with positive and negative infinity.

>> No.10009801

>>10009798
Zero is not infinity, it's a point, a dot of convergence. It can't be infinite since it's singular.

>> No.10009811

>>10009795
>no?
Good.
>utterly dubious handwaving. I'm out
You forgot your gay card.

>> No.10009822

>>10009726
So the set of all real numbers excludes 0?

>> No.10009825

>>10009801
>it's a point, a dot of convergence
Okay, and how big is this dot if it is finite? Where does it begin and end?

>It can't be infinite since it's singular.
The closest you're going to get to representing infinity is as a singular "thing".

>> No.10009831

>>10009822
Do you include positive and negative infinity in the set of all "real numbers"?

>> No.10009839
File: 12 KB, 398x421, uglysmile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10009839

>>10009825
>Singular thing
>Which literally means that there is only one such thing in the entire sum of every mathematical planes
>Somehow represents infinity
What did anon mean by this?

>> No.10009873

>>10009839
Infinity can never be truly represented, it wouldn't be infinite otherwise.

However, mathematics is capable of representing it as clearly as possible. Numbers are the result of neutral infinity, positive infinity and negative infinity connected as one infinity.

>> No.10010066

>>10009831
No because you cannot reach infinity, but you can reach 0

>> No.10010078

>>10009380

Infinity is only a mathematical concept. There is no infinity in real life, in physics.

In physics, when you encounter infinity, it's because you do something wrong or you don't understand enough what you observe (see black holes)

>> No.10010079

>>10010066
>reach 0
And how do you do that?

>> No.10010118

>>10010078
>Infinity is only a mathematical concept. There is no infinity in real life, in physics.
It's a logical concept. If you believe logic exists in real life, then it's logical to think that infinity exists in real life.

>> No.10010136

>>10010079
there is a pen on me desk right now. 1 pen on da desk. i put pen off desk, and now i see no pen on desk. amount of pens on desk is 0 :DD

>> No.10010138

>>10010118
infinity is absurd, it's not logical.

>> No.10010142

>>10010136
That's called -1

>> No.10010163

>>10010138
Only when your concept of infinity is not logical.

>> No.10010168

>>10010079
How many times have you killed yourself?
What is your net displacement from your current position?
Hope much cash do you have on you? Give that away.
Etc.

>> No.10010186

>>10010168
>How many times have you killed yourself?
-1 time.

You can either kill yourself once, or not kill yourself once. You can't do something zero times because zero is neither doing or not doing, it is neutral.

>> No.10010192

>>10010142
If he had -1 pens on the desk
then put one pen on the desk
How many pens would be on the desk?

>> No.10010220

>>10010186
Killed yourself -1 times... so you gave yourself life? You honestly don't even understand what a negative number is. Learn that before thinking about infinity.

>> No.10010224

>>10009796
So you're telling me every length is 0? Because all lengths and distances are unsigned numbers.

>>10009811
>You forgot your gay card.
You forgot your projection inhibitor

>> No.10010232

>>10010142
>1-1=-1
the state of this pothead

>> No.10010241

>>10010232
This, along with the incessant IQ threads, "metaphysics", and flat earth mentality, I'm done with /sci/

>> No.10010250

>>10010241
And most importantly, the hateful responses by people who are blatantly wrong

>> No.10010275

>>10010241
One of these is not like the other

>> No.10010283

>>10010275
You're right, flat earth is at least an attempt at science

>> No.10010291

>>10010283
You pushed my buttons here anon. you pushed em.
Metaphysics deserves a place here.

>> No.10010305

>>10010291
Sure, if it can actually relate to the fundamental theories of physics in some way. I like talking about symmetry as much as the next guy. But then there's threads like this:
>>10009511
Which is basically what 95% of the metaphysics threads I see on /sci/ are, people who want to feel smart but don't actually care enough to learn the basic issues and patterns in the field.

>> No.10010319
File: 27 KB, 456x810, 12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10010319

>>10009596
How can it be undefined you ameba, it is bigger than every real number, that's the definition.

>> No.10010341

Why are people so obsessed with dividing by zero. There is a very simple way to understand why you can't do it. First, understand that multiplication is just a short form for addition. 5 times 5 is just short for 5+5+5+5+5. Good. Now understand that division is just a short form for subtraction. 25/5 is just short for how many times you can subtract 5 from 25 until there is nothing left. So 25-5-5-5-5-5=0. Good. Now try to divide 25 by 0. 25-0-0-0-0-0-0... you will never reach 0. Not even if you subtracted 0 from 25 infinite times would you reach 0. It would still be 25. This is why you cant divide by 0, simplest explanation. Thank you and good night.

>> No.10010362

>>10010341
Actually pretty cool, thanks anon.

>> No.10010408

>>10010192
>How many pens would be on the desk?
+1 pen would be on the desk. You can't "have" a zero "amount" of anything, to "have" requires a positive quantity like +1, to "have not" requires a negative quantity, like -1. Zero is neither.

>> No.10010427

>>10010220
You can't do something zero "times", you but can you can not do something 1 time, not 1 = -1

>> No.10010429

>>10010408
>>10010427

No one is biting any more, sorry

>> No.10010432

>>10010232
You're not taking the pen away from the pen, you're taking the pen away from something else, the pen still exists as a quantity, just as one that has been taken away.

>> No.10010536

>>10010305
And how exactly are we communicating these "fundamental" theories of physics to each other? To what standard do we agree? At some point were gonna have to lay some ground rules if we wanna talk about it at least

>> No.10010539

>>10010305
>>10010536
to be fair you are absolutely correct about those kinds of threads though

>> No.10012219
File: 220 KB, 566x800, 1537100093035.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10012219

>>10009380
When you enter a black hole time slows but but never stops. Time theoretically stops at the singularity so you first theory is fake news

>> No.10012228

>>10009380
Infinity doesn't really exist. Or rather, we are unable to perceive it at all. We can only think about procedures which can lead to infinity which ironically needs an infinite amount of steps from the start. Infinity is just a concept, impossible to realize in practice.

>> No.10012247

>>10012228
>practice
noo, you mean my project of gluing noodles to paper and coloring it with crayons isn't going to work
why even live anymore

>> No.10013054

>>10012228
>Infinity doesn't really exist.
"It" is beyond the realm of true definition, but if we are to reduce "it" to a "thing", then infinity is the only thing that can exist, anything else is a logical impossibility.

>we are unable to perceive it at all.
I think we can perceive it to an extent, through formal logic or mathematical logic.

>We can only think about procedures which can lead to infinity which ironically needs an infinite amount of steps from the start.
Only if you believe in a deterministic universe with "time" moving in a direction. This is where the issue with "infinity" comes from, the concept of a cause and effect, 'beginning' and 'end' finite reality.

This kind of reality cannot work logically because it's an infinite regress. A cause and effect reality requires a constant chain of "causes" that it can never end without breaking the cause and effect chain. An infinite reality with no beginning/end resolves this infinite regress.

Most, if not all, paradoxes arise due to this deterministic view and are solved by not having a "beginning" and "end".

>> No.10013071

>>10013054
cuck

>> No.10013079

>>10013071
Your father was cucked by your mother, and your father's father was cucked by your grandma, and your father's father's father was cucked by your great grandma, and so on to an infinite regress.

>> No.10013096

>>10013079
???????
Make some sense you stupid cuck

>> No.10013103

>>10013096
Do you think believing you're "travelling" through "time" makes sense? Are you a timecuck?