[ 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: 44 KB, 1366x768, black.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4153906 No.4153906 [Reply] [Original]

I just want to know if /sci/ agrees that something cannot be done after an infinite amount of other things have been done.

Also, after answering that please tell me how you've rationalized Xeno's Paradoxes.

>> No.4153919

There is no such thing as infinity. Specifically:
* infinite time
* infinite divisibility

Enjoy.

>> No.4153922

an infinite number of things is done all the time

>> No.4153926

something could theoretically be done after infinite other things have been done but due to the nature of infinity, those infinite things would never finish so the thing being done after those infinite things would never be done.

>> No.4153960

>>4153922
Proof for that statement?

Also my apologies, In the OP I meant if something could be done after an infinite amount of consecutive things.

>>4153926
How would that even be theoretically possible then? In theory AND in definition infinity never ends. Also I forgot to mention the word consecutively in asking whether something could be done after an infinite amount of consecutive (one after the other) things.

>>4153919
Why don't you believe that time will go on for infinity in the future? Time being defined as things which happen before, simultaneously, or after. Why couldn't there be an infinite amount of things that happen after the present?

Also, given an infinite amount of time in the future, what would make it impossible to divide a number an infinite amount of times?

>> No.4153980

OP might want to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number

This is the formalism you use when you want to be able to keep counting when you've already reached infinity (in rough layman's terms of course).

>> No.4153998

>>4153906
i'LL TELL YOU THE ANSWER AFTER MY INFINITE MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS STOP.

>> No.4154004

>>4153906

Universe exists infinitely.
Infinite evvents have happened behind this one.
In this event i wrote this statement.
Hence "that something cannot be done after an infinite amount of other things have been done" is incorrect.

>> No.4154008

Wouldn't it be funny if we lived in a computer and one day someone counted too high.

That would be cool

>> No.4154023

>>4153980
That.

>> No.4154034

>>4153980
Set theory is the Psychology of Math. George Cantor somehow successfully conned people into believing he proved that real numbers were "more numerous" than natural numbers.

Assuming he didn't just mean that per 0-n & n != infinity (example 0-25) there were more real numbers than natural numbers (which is blatantly obvious) then he is obviously wrong.

If you are to to ask how many real numbers and natural numbers exist there are an infinite amount of both. So it would be impossible for there to be more of one than the other unless you set a limit like how many natural numbers vs real numbers are there between 0-25. However, again, it is obvious that there are more real numbers so this wouldn't be worthy of praise for discovery.

>>4154004
>Universe exists infinitely
What do you mean by that?
>Infinite evvents have happened behind this one.
Why do you believe that? How can you prove it?

Given that you use that belief to show that "something cannot be done after an infinite amount of other things have been done." incorrect.

If infinity is defined as never-ending and you do something that never ends then how would you ever be able to do anything else?

Sorry but I'm going to have to call a "can't tell if troll or stupid" on this one.

>> No.4154047

>>4154034
>So it would be impossible for there to be more of one than the other
His entire point was that some infinities are larger than others

The set of real numbers contains every natural number

>> No.4154056

>>4154034

>If infinity is defined as never-ending and you do something that never ends then how would you ever be able to do anything else?

>If infinity is defined as never-ending

Demonstrate this infinity.

>and you do something that never ends

When exactly did i assert that i am doinq an infinitely lonq action/activity?

>Sorry but I'm going to have to call a "can't tell if troll or stupid" on this one

Thats hilariously ironic, because it perfectly applies to you at this minute.

>> No.4154105

>>4154034
>Cantor is obviously wrong

Yeah... reading that doesn't really make me want to talk with you.