Your Little Infinity - from The Fault in Our Stars

Llama Su wrote: Irrational
How can a number be irrational?
Who said this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

When is a quantity not a quantity, when it has no actual value. Infinity does not mean too big/small to measure, it means infinitely fragmented into (non zero I think?) parts, hence it would seem to me has no absolute value. As I said though I don't think infinity is even a number. I could be wrong though, I'm woefully short on math, I know just enough to know I know basically nothing about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Simply because we do not understand a "irrational" number makes it less rational?
Pi is one of the most beautiful number sequences.
How else would God or the force prove, express, display, or show infinity, if not with numbers?
Pi never ends...
The golden ratio for example has short irrational proof to it as well.
A very beautiful design found throughout the nature of life. Also does not stop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
The Fibonacci number, irrational. Can continue to go on "forever".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number

My mind gets bugged out contemplating infinity with the relation to eternity,
:woohoo:

Adder wrote:

Llama Su wrote: Irrational
How can a number be irrational?
Who said this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

When is a quantity not a quantity, when it has no actual value. Infinity does not mean too big/small to measure, it means infinitely fragmented into (non zero I think?) parts, hence it would seem to me has no absolute value. As I said though I don't think infinity is even a number. I could be wrong though, I'm woefully short on math, I know just enough to know I know basically nothing about it.

Infinity is a path; if we show numbers on something like this:


where the distance from 0 is the number, (with right being positive and left being negative) if you keep going to right you're getting close and closer to infinity. Although that's a (simplified) mathematics definition. in physics infinity depends on system - for a sphere mirror for examle with radius of 10 cm; 1km is infinity....

Alright, I'll not go too deep into how asinine I think the notion is that two mutually exclusive positions can both be equally valid. I've been there before and I can no longer be bothered thusly.

However, you did prompt me for the proofs I was refering to, so brace yourself:
Postulate: infty/infty <> infty
Proof by contradiction/indirect proof:
Assuming infty/infty = infty
It follows that there are no limits lim(a_n) and lim(b_n) of sequences a_n and b_n, for 1=<n=<infty, respectively, such that lim(a_n)/lim(b_n)=x and x<>infty.
Now let a_n equal 1 for n=1 and recursively a_(n+1) equal a_n + 1. With n ranging from 1 to infty, lim(a_n)=infty.
Also, let b_n equal 1 for n=1 and recursively a_(n+1) equal a_n + a_n!. With n ranging from 1 to infty, lim(a_n)=infty.
However, lim(a_n)/lim(b_n)=lim(a_n/b_n)=0 and that contradicts the premise followed from the assumption.
q.e.d.

Now the second proof.
Postulate: not(infty-infty=x with x=-1 or x=0 or x=1)
Same proof method. Assuming the negation of the postulate which is the initial postulate Alex made.
It follows that there will not be a lim(p_n)-lim(q_n)=x for which x will not equal either of those three outcomes.
Now let p=a and q=b from the previous example.
lim(p_n)-lim(q_n)=lim(p_n-q_n)=-infty and that contradicts the premise followed from the assumption.
q.e.d.

Alright, now that that is out of the way, why don't you next time decide to agree or disagree based on something you actually think and can defend rather than out of mere loyalty. At least that would seem like you cared about whether something is true rather than whether it fits with your feelings or whatever.
As to the point I was making, I summarized it in the last paragraph. Prior to it I was just being nitpicky about Alex' post because you know... math.
Next point: Please tell me what you mean by contradiction. Because clearly we're not using the same definition of that term here since I didn't say anything remotely internally inconsistent nor afaik anything inconsistent with the one reality I hope all of us share.
Yes, you are right to disagree. If you can also explain why you do, perhaps I could learn something from it. Or perhaps somebody else could. It is in silently expressing nothing that we are robbing each other of opportunities to learn and to grow and to expand our "perception", not by voicing ourselves. So please, kindly tell us all what you want to say so that we can benefit from it.
Yes, maybe you are wrong. How sad that you don't care. I sure do if I'm wrong. Heck, I even care if others are. Because none of us live in bubbles and what we think matters not only inside our heads but outside, too.
Yes, you can say infinity is 6. Or any other number. You would be wrong in each and every case, because infinity is neither of those. Its kind of not finite, you know. Its exactly what Pi and sqrt(2) and Phi are not. The fact that our current way of noting numbers is such that it doesn't allow for a finite amount of digits does nothing to demonstrate infinity of either of those actual values. they are there, we can point to them on a scale with some precision - something we cannot do and will never be able to do with infinity. And none of that is a matter of perception because just about all of this is a matter of definition, at least of those numbers. Admittedly, infinity doesn't have a consistent definition in any mathematical sense.
Also, don't confuse infinity with infinitesimals. Remember Zenon and the flying arrow paradoxon. It still flies. Because infinitessimals are not zero and infinity is not a quantity.

On a side note, Adder: Irrational numbers are real numbers. Infinity isn't.

And back to Llama:
Irrational has nothing to do with rationality or our ability to understand. We understand irrational numbers very, very well, actually. Irrational means exactly what it says: Not rational. Cannot be expressed as a ratio. FYI, its the rational numbers that are the weird ones. There set of rational numbers is in fact negligibly small compared to the set of irrational ones, so if anything, the question should be how a number can be rational, when almost none of them are.

Also, learn2math!!
[/epic rant]

And finally, MCSH: No, no amount you walk on the real numbers will get you closer to infinity. As Alex pointed out, infty-y=infty. So, basically, 500 trillion is exactly as far from infinity as 0.064 is.

Um... infinity is not a number. It's a path. There isn't a getting closer to... I said it's simplified Gisteron...

While walking in a path to home, you don't get closer to path - you are on the path always no matter where. I do agree with you and as I said twice before, it was a simplified definition.

:laugh:
My math must be different than yours Gisteron.

There is a Doctrine I follow.
Maxims:#3, 4, 17
To be specific.
Infinity a contradiction, is this what you are saying. I want to understand correct, Gisteron.
If so...

Can the Force be measured? What about Karma?
Do the math on 0 and get back to me. The math of a circle, 360 degree cipher.
Do the math on nothing and tell me infinity does not exist.
Do the math on possibility. When one says, "anything is possible", this is not true?

This "proof" you just provided, is it well known? Was there an award given for this proven fact.
Who discovered the equation formula you provided, if you do not mind me asking for further reference.

If it cannot be proven, (infinity) it cannot exist?
:blink:
If so, I disagree

Llama Su wrote: My math must be different than yours Gisteron.

I don't know about that. After all, its not that we are using different math, really. I'm just using math whereas you don't. Which is fine by me, really, so long as we both are aware of that.

There is a Doctrine I follow.

Irrelevant. Truth is not dependant on any loyalties, and faith at no point was a pathway to it. Besides, I have yet to see any doctrinal point on infinity concretely, thus that argument is invalid. Besides, chosing one's loyalties in the face and instead of truth is neither something the maxims prescribe, and I'd even argue it is in conflict with the second line of the code, which, by the way, has been around back at least when I took my oath while the maxims weren't, and I probably wouldn't have taken that oath if they were. On a side note, I'm still curios who's brilliant idea it was to add them.

Infinity a contradiction, is this what you are saying. I want to understand correct, Gisteron.

I'll leave this to the judgement of your brothers in faith: Is this something I said? I quoted two equations, asserted they were false and promised to provide a formal proof of my assertion when prompted. You prompted me. I provided a proof by method of reductio ad imossibilem. Hit me a PM if you don't understand what I'm saying and I shall explain. It is likely I'm not expressing myself simply enough and that is not your fault nor could I predict who would and who wouldn't understand.

Can the Force be measured? What about Karma?

The way Karma is defined it cannot be measured. You would however need to define what you mean by the Force before I can hope to say anything about it.

Do the math on 0 and get back to me. The math of a circle, 360 degree cipher.

Please, restate your inquiry. "Do the math" is a little too unspecific. When I criticized Alex' post, it was very particular equations I went into.

Do the math on nothing and tell me infinity does not exist.

Again, I don't understand what you mean by "do the math" in this context, but also, what do you mean by nothing, how do you justify that it is something you can do mathematical operations or analysis on, how does it relate to infinity and what exactly do you mean by "exist"? See - I also don't understand what you're talking about.

Do the math on possibility. When one says, "anything is possible", this is not true?

You mean probability? I haven't had formal probability theory yet, so I only have a layman's understanding of it. "Do the math" is still a very unspecific inquiry, but to answer your follow-up question, yes, "anything is possible" is a false statement, and feel free to prompt me for a formal proof of that.

This "proof" you just provided, is it well known? Was there an award given for this proven fact.

I don't know. All I know is that I was using mathematically sound premises and a logically valid argumentative structure. Since thusly the argument was both valid and sound, its conclusion inevitably is true. For further information I refer you to the mathematical area of study by the name of analysis. Things like that are covered there very early on.

Who discovered the equation formula you provided, if you do not mind me asking for further reference.

Math is not a science. It doesn't make discoveries, it provides definitions and derives statements from them. I defined two sequences that do both converge at infinity and concluded a statement that contradicted the asserted equation. Thus the two sides of the equation weren't actually equal and the equation therefore incorrect.

If it cannot be proven, (infinity) it cannot exist?

Statements and statements only can be proven, and not even all of those. Infinity is not a statement, therefore it cannot be proven. I don't even know how one would go about trying. As for existence, you'd have to define that for me to answer the question. For now all I can say is that infinity is not a quantity and though it with care can be treated like a number, it isn't a number in any strict sense either. So at least it is not an element in any set of numbers.

Math is not a science?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Mathematics_as_science
Truth is not subjective?
E=mc2 this was not discovered?
So you invented created or "discovered" this formula to prove the contradictory state of infinity?
I can make up formulas too...
I choose to not need to, in this equation...
Without proof of this, your amazing point is void!
Infinity is void...
You going to prove void with void?
:laugh:
Post a link of reference so I may back up your claim. No show and prove? I see no evidence.

Your math is right and exact to you, for you...
As is "mine".

Your math is right and exact to you, for you...
As is "mine".

....Its amazing how many people go out of there way NOT to communicate or be understood.

I have a hard enough time trying to learn Spanish.

Math, is excellent in that it is essentially a universal method of communication.

Why not actually make an effort to use it, and any other language as it was meant to be used.

Not to create an "us" and "them"...

Certainly, everyone has there point of view, but I see little reason to purposely build walls around it.

What? You hiding the secrets to the Death Star in there?

I think the above quote shows how often this " It is how I see it/define it" actually is an intentional act of disconnection, rather than a method to communicate.