It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Infinity a big mistake ?

page: 8
0
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 10:39 AM

Originally posted by 25cents
boundary - the edge of somethings influence, the furthest something may be allowed to roam

limit - see above.

any mathematician that tells you boundaries and limits are different is a a-hole. if they mean boundaries insofar as a set of numbers (say, real numbers for example), then it's still limitless. if they choose an equation like 1/x, which never reaches zero but approaches it as a limit, then it is bounded by y=0 and x=0, and may not cross them.

NOt to sure, but I remember that a function approaching infinity may be unbounded as long as the limit value is finite. Does not sound to me that they are the same.

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Frosty
I just have to say I wouldn't understand why mathematicians would be so redundant as to use two words for the same definition....although....

You're right Frosty, mathematicians' screwed up language usage had lead to this predicament.

Something is limitless in the sense that it has no end, but is bounded by some governing principle much like the infinite set of numbers which are contained between each integer are bounded by the integers on either side. It would be a governed, quantifiably smaller infinity, which do exist as we have seen in the example of the set of real numbers and the infinite real numbers which exist between each integer(infinitesimals that Protector is so fond of)

This is a real test problem from Topology: “Prove that every uncountable(no boundaries) subset of the real numbers has a limit point?”

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 03:39 PM
again, no infinity can be larger than another - one object or idea without limit and without end is the same as any other.

and by 'boundary' it seems like you're trying to say 'definition' - a function that has a real boundary is NOT infinite, it ends.

and regarding the statement that the infinite series of numbers between 2 integers being bounded - it's all a matter of definition and perspective. there are not twice as many numbers between 1 and 3 as there are between 1 and 2 - an infinity is an infinity, no matter how you look at it.

moot point, really. there's no possible way for anyone to observae an infinity, and i highly doubt that proof of one would change our lives in any significant manner. i just like the idea that zero is foiled once and for all.

posted on Feb, 26 2006 @ 07:42 PM

Originally posted by 25cents
and did you realy just say that (real numbers)^2 can be defined?

YES.

(Real #s)^2 is a real number plane, where as (Real #s)^1, OR just Real #s, are technically only a single number line extending off to infinity.

|R = infinite number line
|R^2 = infinite plane
|R^3 = infinite space

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 05:43 PM

:Originally posted by Frosty
x + y = 10
xy=40

True? How not, how so?

>>> x(10-x) = 40
>>> x^2 - 10x +40 = 0

x1 = 5.0 + 3.872983346207417 i
x2 = 5.0 - 3.872983346207417 i

Not that this will help much, but I noticed no-one put the solution up yet...

Cheers.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by d60944]

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:01 PM

Originally posted by d60944

:Originally posted by Frosty
x + y = 10
xy=40

True? How not, how so?

>>> x(10-x) = 40
>>> x^2 - 10x +40 = 0

x1 = 5.0 + 3.872983346207417 i
x2 = 5.0 - 3.872983346207417 i

Not that this will help much, but I noticed no-one put the solution up yet...

Cheers.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by d60944]

Ya, though it shouldn't be expressed in terms of decimals, I would think. THis was a problem presented to Jerome Cardan over 400 years ago.

Since some of the debate is altered towards constructing all numbers from 1, I thought it would be appropriate to see if all numbers means all numbers or if it simply means all real numbers.

So are irrational, imaginary, etc numbers also constructed from 1?

[edit on 5-3-2006 by Frosty]

posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 07:12 AM
I don't think it's something to do with the "number one" itself. It is more that things are contructed from the concept of unity itself (which is itself open to different ways of being described according to the maths you choose to use). Things can either be a unity or a combination of unities. It doesn't matter how you choose to define your unity. It could be "1" in base 10 mathematics, or pi in base pi mathematics. It's not really a mathematical problem - I think it's more philosophical. It is the proposition that a "thing" is "itself", and when you add other "things" which are not "itself" to it, then you get multiples of "thingness". To put is as mathematics..... 1 + n =/= 1 [where n=/=0]

Imaginary and irrational numbers don't alter this (one can theoretically count in base pi if you want, or in base i).

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:01 AM
I still believe that Infinity is misunderstood. I am not trying to say that I understand it completely either. For example, we talk about what the Universe is exapnding into. Some say into infinite nothingness. I say you cannot count nothingness ( vacuum ) therefore, it is not infinite at all, and I believe it can just be said to be 0. Because 0 is a number that describes nothingness ( vacuum ). Another way I look at it is if you had a hollow box, in which there was a vacuum, surely you are not going to say there is x cm^3 of vacuum inside the box. You cannot measure out volumes of nothingness, and therfore you cannot call nothingness infinite. Therefore, the Universe is simply expanding, what it is expanding to is irrelevant.

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:14 PM
Yeah, its definately an issue with the language and not the math.

You see, the universe [I]can[/I] expand infinitely, and become infinitely thin... but the hilarious thing there, is that the universe only has itself to relate to, so... the universe hasnt expanded at all relative to itself.

Technically, no matter how infinitely large and thin the universe becomes... it will allways appear (at first glance) to its enhabitants to be exactly the same size. Though... the universe will always change shape... but thats not due to its expansion.

In regards to infinity from a human perspective. The human brain is accustomed to understanding concepts that it can see/hear/feel/smell... you cannot do this with infinity. Its a concept that is outside our perceptive ranges, and can only be understood properly through a solid understanding of math. Which is why so many people have trouble visualising infinity.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by johnsky]

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:14 PM
Sorry for the double post... didnt mean to.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by johnsky]

posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 11:02 PM
why do we like to trouble ourselvrs with just impossible tassks... i bet even god cant answer that... if he can, ask him this where he came from and so on...

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by johnsky

In regards to infinity from a human perspective. The human brain is accustomed to understanding concepts that it can see/hear/feel/smell... you cannot do this with infinity. Its a concept that is outside our perceptive ranges, and can only be understood properly through a solid understanding of math. Which is why so many people have trouble visualising infinity.

[edit on 26-4-2006 by johnsky]

BINGO. After 8 pages of this discussion, this is where we as humans ultimately and inevitably will arive. Infinity is xtra-dimensional of the 3D world we inhabit, and is therefore out of our inherent perceptual ability. We are living in a "start and finish" bound world in "start and finish" bound bodies, inifinity literally has nothing to do with how we interact with the world and is non exsistant. Case closed.

THIS IS WHERE THE PEOPLE THAT BELEIVE THAT THIS WORLD/DIMENSION IS THE ONLY ONE, AND THAT OUR CONCIOUSNESS CONNOT TRANSCENT DIMENSIONS SHOULD STOP HERE.

Infinity has to exsist or else we would have an irrefutable scientific text book documenting exactly how we got here. This "god" business wouldnt even exsist. Buuuuuut...weeee....dont, and it will continue to be a stumper until we enter an infinitely bound dimension and experience it first hand. Other than that its here-say.

Personally...(being that the only real reality is a personal one) i think the only infinite thing in this dimension is our own conciousness, but that doesnt mean are bodies are. An infinite conciousness simply wont fit in a start/finish enviroment, its boundless energy would virtually snap the electromagnetic spetrum in two. Therefore we need something that is bound to the 3D physics of this universe and receive the frequency outputs of the enviroment, ergo the 5 senses. With the inevitable death of the body, we loose our 3 dimensional vehicle and transcend into an infinite envirment that must be so polar oposite from anything weve ever known, it could very possibly be cosidered mystical. (maybe even heavenly?) This is where our illusive infinity concept resides. I suppose the mental block lies in mans presumption that the non-physical conciousness is the same as the physical brain.

Maybe the biggest conspiracy is the secret marriage of science and sprituality.

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by siddharthsma
I got this example from a book, and I thought it was a good example of when Infinity can cause unecessary problems in Math.
But we also know infinity causes problems in Physics, e.g when we say space time can have infinite curvature. This runs us into a singularity.

What do you think, is infinity really necessary, or is it a concept that should be discarded ?

I don't know so much what to think about your mathematical equations. I guess I can see your train of though, but I think you're missing the dot just a little bit. As far as infinity causing problems in physics, perhaps physics is in some ways flawed; as for infinity being necessary, I almost am tempted to put infinity in the field of supernatural. It is not only something that we can't get explain, it is something that our minds are not built to comprehend. We aren't meant to be able to understand the fact that the universe may be unlimited in size; therefore, we force ourselves to use mathematics and physics to disprove these infinities and come up with alternative theories.

I think infinity is a very flexible term, and that no one at this point can truly understand it completely.

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:34 AM

Man can comfortably grasp finite time. We struggle conceptually with the infinite. To me this shows infinity is not a unit of time at all, at least in the sense that time is a man-made construct. I also think finite time is ultimately illusory because of the presence of infinity.

I hope this doesn't stray off topic, but maybe the fact that we CAN remember/have forsight is why we as a species have time and math and science.. pretty much what seperates us from almost the rest of the life on this planet.
But ya lucid,.. i feel ya

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:36 AM
quote above is from Lucid Lunacy

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:08 PM
I've come to this thread late, but from my reading of the replies I do not see anyone (I could have missed it) pointing out that infinity is not and can not be part of the time universes. One can not have time and still have infinity since time is a qualification of infinity where everything happens at once.

Infinity must be considered to be a status of a multi-reality universe. Time and space are not essential to infinity as they are both qualifiers.

Infinite mathematical series such as Pi exists and so do the other relationships within the universe which each cast their shadows/echoes onto the time cosmos from their one-time association in the cradle of infinity.

Infinity has to be hidden from a time travelers view otherwise to participate in its reality is to destroy the use of time.

The universe itself is not yet infinite, but it is so large numbers are meaningless to describe it. One also has to consider that the expansion of the universe is not a one-way street, but that the universe over extremely long cycles goes through a condensation (i.e. space between steady states of matter is reduced).

I do not doubt that there is a mechanism within infinity which maintains an eternal balance between the motions in space with the motions of space and such a mechanism will exhibit a difference in space pressures. Measurement of these space pressures by science will be possible someday, but I am afraid until there is some recognition that the universe is a respiring reality, no attempt will be made to determine the universal aspects of space existence.

If something is qualified (infinity, by definition, is an unqualified existence), that means there is much more left out or edited out of the viewed universe. We can not comprehend what is left out. That much more left out is what we identify as infinity and likely various stages of timelessness beyond our capacity to segregate from the viewable universe. This is not an argument for religion necessarily, but a positive enforcement of the idea that infinity can and does exist, and that the very qualifications of time also act as a buffer against infinity being experienced within the time shield.

Matter is not infinite, but it partakes of some of the characteristics of its infinite association, for if you reduce matter to its essential particle, that particle does not exhibit a reaction to linear gravity. It reacts only to the elliptic shape of a pre-gravity cause. Ask the physicist who deals with these strange particles and about how they clump together to form the more familiar electronic particles of an atom. He may not describe them quite as I do, but these particles are indestructible and are the evidence of the emanation of the unqualified and infinite source of energy.

Omniscient quite correctly states that from the time perspective, infinity seems to be bordering on the supernatural. Time is the opposite of what infinity does; it is super sized and without time control. In fact, time is controlled by it! Even space, while being strange stuff, is not infinite. However the value of knowing that infinity exists is to understand that no one can end the universe, or exhaust knowledge, or stop progress. In its way, infinity is a guarantee that should we so choose, there is no end to conscious enlightenment through discovery.

Ron

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 04:48 PM

Originally posted by 25cents
again, no infinity can be larger than another - one object or idea without limit and without end is the same as any other.

...an infinity is an infinity, no matter how you look at it.

Well, I haven't read every page of this thread, but I did notice the above incorrect statements. I also hadn't seen where anyone discussed the actual natures of the various infinities.

Turns out that there are more Real numbers on the number line between 0 and 1 than there are Whole numbers (digits) on the entire number line all the way out to infinity. This is a mathematical fact proven by Cantor in his Diagonal Argument.

The infinity of whole numbers corresponds to what Mathematicians call "Aleph-null" or the first cardinal infinity. The number of Real numbers between zero and one corresponds to "Aleph-1" the second cardinal infinity. Aleph-1 is infinitely larger than Aleph-null, meaning that the number of real numbers between zero and one is actually infinitely larger than the number of whole numbers on the number line.

As far as I can remember, there are four cardinal infinities. Aleph-null through Aleph-3. Each is infinitely larger than the previous. There might be more, I don't recall.

Harte

[edit on 6/1/2006 by Harte]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 01:26 AM

The universe itself is not yet infinite, but it is so large numbers are meaningless to describe it.

yep yep.. We share a similar view. it (our verse) is incomprehensible. but is still a fact or there (as far as we understand, or.. know.. I believe infinity to be a fallacy of our species, much like i said about time being a man made thing to explain that which he cannot. Almost like the ancient religions or superstitions of the past ( centuries - milleniea [spell check?] )

posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 01:36 PM
The volume of the universe may be finite but the surface area may be infinite. Would looking at the universes infinite surface area give a perception of the universe having a infinite volume?

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 09:26 AM
Infinity does exist here is a simple example you all can do in your own home. Hold two mirrors face to face and look down one of them. It go’s on for infinity without end this also works if you have one two way mirror and do the same as above you will get a better view.

Also infinity must be created like holding the two mirrors together. Infinity didn’t exist until you created it and you can end it. So in retrospect you can have many different views on infinity. In other words infinity in itself goes on forever but can be started and ended.

Hope this makes sense!

AlBeMeT

top topics

0