It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
spy66
reply to post by bastion
If I wrote down every even number it'd be an infinite set
If I wrote down every odd number it's be an infinite set
If I got piece of string and cut it in half, then cut each half and reapeated add inifnitum I'd have infinite cantor dust.
We are not talking about unreal numbers. They have nothing to with the physical reality. They are just numbers, they represent nothing real.
If you have a string, you can not cut it in half, and than cut it in half again, inifinite times. Not in the physical world.
At a point the string would just vanish because of the atmospheric pressure / density.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
bastion
spy66
reply to post by bastion
If I wrote down every even number it'd be an infinite set
If I wrote down every odd number it's be an infinite set
If I got piece of string and cut it in half, then cut each half and reapeated add inifnitum I'd have infinite cantor dust.
We are not talking about unreal numbers. They have nothing to with the physical reality. They are just numbers, they represent nothing real.
If you have a string, you can not cut it in half, and than cut it in half again, inifinite times. Not in the physical world.
At a point the string would just vanish because of the atmospheric pressure / density.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
That's not true. The cardinal sets are called Natural Numbers because they occur in nature
An unreal number is known as an imaginary number such as 2i.
If you kept cutting the string you end up with Cantor Dust where the sum of the cuts is equal the line - this is the paradox Cantor discovered that caused the separation between physical and imaginary infinity. It's very definition is that it's nowhere dense.
I had to spend our years doing number theory so I'm annoyingly pedantic/good at it.
These are precisely the problems you'll encounter when removing scientific and mathematical terms from their original meaning.
As far as I'm aware no one has specified which inifnity they are using. No offence but I would like yourself or e=mc^2 to describe/define infinity as this is something even the best mathematical minds struggle with but you appear to be treating it as a simple concept.
I'm not trying to catch you out or anything as I only know because of decades of study but I'm intrigued as to what you think infinity is.edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)
bastion
You're wrong there. Infinite sets occur in nature, they're known as concrete infinites they can be countable or uncountable. I'm not interested in arguing on here but I am willing to teach if you want. Everything is number after all. It's a very complicated but incredibly interesting subject.
Natural numbers are used in aerodynamics where infinity often occurs.
Since the late 1700s there's been a big distinction between theoretical/mathematical and physical infinities. Cantors string/dust threw out Aristotle's ideas of metaphysics and replaced them with actualism.
He's written a brilliant paper here - that explains infinity, infinity in nature and what implications this has on the idea of a creator www.academia.edu...
The string is an example of compactive symmetry. This was mathematics discovered in the 18th Century. The line converges to infinity same same as number sets do.
When Kaku talks about infinity he's talking about Abstract and Concrete infinities, not the Absolute infinities e=mc^2 seems to be confusing it with.
bastion
You guys obviously spend a lot of time thinking about this so why not use that time to learn some Physics instead as at the moment you're misinterpreting terminology and not coming up with arguement that have substance.
reply to post by edmc^2
You're misunderstanding what infinity is.
If I wrote down every even number it'd be an infinite set
If I wrote down every odd number it's be an infinite set
If I got piece of string and cut it in half, then cut each half and reapeated add inifnitum I'd have infinite cantor dust.
edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)
bastion
I give up, all of that is nonsense, your concept of infinite couldn't be more wrong and outdated. I already provided the proof of Cantor's string its Sum 1...infinity(2^n-1/3n) = 1, this is something proven time and time again over the last 300 years.
I teach maths and have a degree in it, there's no use pretending you know what you're talking about.
Please learn maths, it's very useful. Read books on Number Theory if you don't want to believe me.edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)
spy66
bastion
I give up, all of that is nonsense, your concept of infinite couldn't be more wrong and outdated. I already provided the proof of Cantor's string its Sum 1...infinity(2^n-1/3n) = 1, this is something proven time and time again over the last 300 years.
I teach maths and have a degree in it, there's no use pretending you know what you're talking about.
Please learn maths, it's very useful. Read books on Number Theory if you don't want to believe me.edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)
All finite can be split a infinite amount of time. But that does not make any of them infinite.
If you split the 10 cm long string a infinite amount of times, the 10 cm string will not change in any way. The string will still be 10 cm lang. You can disproove this with a mathematical equation if you like? But i know you cant, because there aint one that can do it.
And you know that i am right. The 10 cm string will never take up more space if you split it a infinite amount of time.
You can do the math on that.
I dosent matter what you teach. It dosent give you any more high grounds that you actually know what your teaching.
You just know how to suffel a bunch of numbers in a equation.
If you knew what we were actually talking about, You would never have mentioned anything of what you do and say that you have a degree in math.
The singularity can be split a infinite amount of times, a infinite amount of times. But the singularity will never be infinite. It will always be a finite. It will never change no mater how many times you split it.
Another question.
What source would you use to make the right calculated split?
If you are going to make a inifnite thin slice? What would you measure with to make the right cut?
If you know the math. You should know the answer. Than you can ask you self, CAN IT BE DONE? Or is it just mathematical impractical theory?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
Easy a plank-length lamina. No the slice removes the middle third an infinite number of times and electron microscopes can do he measuring.
If you think it's impractical then you must think most of the inventions of the past 300 years are. They're used in almost all systems here change takes place plus fractal geometry and bounded orbits, examples can be seen on the rings of Saturn and X-ray diffraction.
Also if you understood maths you'd know there's no such thing si an impractical theory.
***THREAD SOLVED***
AfterInfinity
reply to post by SisyphusRide
Your tactics betray your desperation.
AfterInfinity
Wow. Is this what the thread has devolved to?
bastion
AfterInfinity
Wow. Is this what the thread has devolved to?
Sadly yes. Amazing how people can solve the most intriguing (and probably impossible) areas of science without understanding any of the Maths or Science behind it.
AfterInfinity
Wow. Is this what the thread has devolved to?
AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
I'm not even sure infinity exists. It is beyond our ability to comprehend or express, if it does, so I sure as hell am not taking you as an authority on the nature of "infinity".
AfterInfinity
reply to post by edmc^2
I'm not even sure infinity exists. It is beyond our ability to comprehend or express, if it does, so I sure as hell am not taking you as an authority on the nature of "infinity".