Hilbert's Paradox and 0=1

[AKG]

In Hilbert's famous paradox of the Grand Hotel, we have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, and we can create a vacancy by having each guest move over to the next room. However, I don't see how this works. For one, each individual guest moves, and each move by a guest creates a vacancy (when he leaves his room) and then eliminates a vacancy (when he occupies the next room). Each individual move changes the number of vacancies by zero. Why should an infinite number of such moves be any different? The sum of a countably infinite number of zeroes is zero, so how is the vacancy created?

Also, why is it permissible to say that all of those guests who move over actually do find a room (leaving one vacancy) and, there isn't always going to be one guest with no room (even if we can't say he's the "last" guest) but it is not permissible to do the following:

0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
0 = (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ...
0 = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...
0 = 1 + (-1) + 1 + (-1) + 1 + (-1) + ...
0 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ...
0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
0 = 1 ?

[AKG]

Well I just read this:

The error here is that the associative law cannot be applied freely to infinite sums unless they are absolutely convergent. In fact, it is possible to show that in any field, 0 is not equal to 1.

(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_1_equals_-1))

Why is it that we cannot do this with the associative law, but we can essentially do something similar with the guests and rooms. Actually, what does it mean to apply the associative law to an infinite sum? We are applying it to an infinte number of finite sums, are we not? Anyways, assuming someone clears that up, why is that something we cannot do, but we can essentially shift the association of guests and rooms, i.e. if you think of each room as +1, and each guest as -1, then originally we have (+1-1) + (+1-1) + ... and have zero vacancies. Then we shift the brackets over, and get 1 vacancy, as shifting the brackets over is similar to associating a guest with the next room.

[mathman]

Hilbert: As you know, every real hotel has only a finite number of rooms. Once you get to infinite, funny things happen. It is no different from saying the number of integers is the same as the number of even integers.

Series: Your second line (1-1+1.....) is not absolutely convergent, so it is not surprising that rearranging terms gives a different answer.

[jcsd]

It's an interting problem, but the very fact your moving from sum whose value is a defined, to one whose value is undefined back to one which is defined, eems simlair to divison by zero to me.

[robert Ihnot]

If it is difficult to see the vacancy, look at it like this: The hotel manager tells every guest to move from room n to room 2n. Thus 1 goes to 2, 2 goes to 4, 3 goes to 6, and what do you know: We have empty rooms 1, 3, 5,.....2n+1, +++, why we have half the rooms vacant!!!! This way of working is a lot faster than just creating only 1 new vacancy per move!

[AKG]

Series: Your second line (1-1+1.....) is not absolutely convergent, so it is not surprising that rearranging terms gives a different answer.I haven't rearranged the terms at all. Please explain why the associative law cannot be applied to infinite sums that aren't absolutely convergent. Actually that sounds strange to me (it's what was quoted from Wikipedia). Could you explain exactly what's meant by that? And please also explain why we can essentially do an analogous thing with the people and rooms, but not with numbers.

[AKG]

Or better yet, prove to me that all guests can find a room after shifting over one. You can say that for all guests originally in room n, there must be a room n+1, but I can say that for every term t_n in the series such that t_n = -1, there is a term t_(n+1) = 1, so they can always cancel out.

[robert Ihnot]

As for the sum, so as 0=1; the problem with that is that an alternating series converges to diffent sums depending on how the terms are grouped, as you have shown. If the absolute value of the terms was convergent we have a different matter, but here, of course, the absolute value term by term is infinite. The error here is taking an infinite series, calling its sum 0, the making it an alternating series 1 -1, 1, -1 and then rearranging the terms, well, now the sum is not 0.

[AKG]

As for the sum, so as 0=1; the problem with that is that an alternating series converges to diffent sums depending on how the terms are grouped, as you have shown. If the absolute value of the terms was convergent we have a different matter, but here, of course, the absolute value term by term is infinite. The error here is taking an infinite series, calling its sum 0, the making it an alternating series 1 -1, 1, -1 and then rearranging the terms, well, now the sum is not 0.This is the same "error" Hilbert seems to be making. And you're not saying why it's wrong, simply that it's wrong. Personally, I can't see how it makes any sense that the order in which terms are added should make a difference just because the terms are infinite and the series is not absolutely convergent. As long as you still ultimately add the same terms, why would order matter? But anyways, I'll take it that it does matter without an explanation for now. But then tell me why a reordering does matter, and thus is not allowed with 1 -1 + 1 + ... but is allowed with the guests and rooms.

In the attached image, consider the black dots to be guests, and the squares to be rooms. The red lines show the original associations of rooms to guests, and the blue lines show the associations after the move. Shifting association like this seems similar to shifting the brackets around with the series I presented. And, of course, if anyone can give a reason as to why the associative law cannot be used, or that a non-absolutely-convergent series cannot have the associative law applied to some of the terms, that would be nice.

EDIT: Maybe another way of putting it: we know that if we have a finite number of terms, we can freely associate the terms in the series and perform additions. The same is true with finite rooms/guests, i.e. if we have a 6 room hotel (more like a motel), we can puts guests 1 through 6 in rooms 1 through 6, or put guest 1 in room 2, and mix it up in general. In both cases, we can freely associate terms or room/guests. Now we can't freely associate them with an infinite series that's not absolutely convergent. Along the same lines, what makes Hilbert or you or anyone think they can freely associate guests like that with an infinite number of rooms?

ANOTHER EDIT: Please, also keep in mind the question : if each move made by a guest from one room to another can neither create nor eliminate a vacancy, how can an infinite number of them?

The most sensible thing to me is this: the ordering or association of a series does not matter. 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ..., strange as it sounds, should depend on whether there can be a pairing between the +1's and -1's or not. Essentially, the infinity of terms would have to be either odd or even (yes, it's weird, but no one said we're dealing with non-weird stuff). The arrangment should not matter. If we do not know whether it's even or odd, it's like asking what sin(x) is as x approaches infinity, and let's say x is in the set of all multiples of pi/2. Now if we say that a hotel is occupied, then moving the guests around shouldn't affect the occupied state. If we can actually pair the guests to the room, then it's occupied.

Of course, this isn't perfect, I'd have to think about it some more. But I think it's a little better. If anything, it at least provides us a criteria to determine if there are vacancies or not, whereas the normal approach does not. Whether the hotel is full or "half"-empty, we can always draw a one-to-one correspondence between rooms and guests, and in fact we can always draw a "five-to-one" correspondence too. So what criteria is there?

[master_coda]

This is the same "error" Hilbert seems to be making. And you're not saying why it's wrong, simply that it's wrong. Personally, I can't see how it makes any sense that the order in which terms are added should make a difference just because the terms are infinite and the series is not absolutely convergent. As long as you still ultimately add the same terms, why would order matter? But anyways, I'll take it that it does matter without an explanation for now. But then tell me why a reordering does matter, and thus is not allowed with 1 -1 + 1 + ... but is allowed with the guests and rooms.


The reason it's wrong to rearrange the terms is because if you assume that an infinite number of additions is associative, then you can show that 1=0 which is a contradiction. So your assumption that addition is associative in the infinite case must have been wrong.

Anyway, a lot of things break down when you just take the finite case and naively extend it to the infinite case.

[AKG]

The reason it's wrong to rearrange the terms is because if you assume that an infinite number of additions is associative, then you can show that 1=0 which is a contradiction. So your assumption that addition is associative in the infinite case must have been wrong.That's like saying if you rearrange the guests and create one vacancy out of none, you have a contradiction, so you can't rearrange the guests. Again, you're not showing why it's wrong, only that it's wrong and leads to a contradiction, not explaining what's fundamentally wrong with applying the associative law like that. And what is really being done that's considered "association in the infinite case?" I'm applying the associative law to only a finite nubmer of terms (2 terms), simply doing it an infinite number of times. It seems to me that a series that is absolute convergent allows this sort of association, so it's not that we can't use the association law an infinite number of times. It simply leads to a contradiction in certain cases. Again, I think it's contradictory to state that 1=0 is a contradiction, but creating 1 vacancy in a hotel with zero vacancies is not a contradiction.

[Hurkyl]

In Hilbert's famous paradox of the Grand Hotel, we have a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests, and we can create a vacancy by having each guest move over to the next room. However, I don't see how this works.

If everybody moves to the next room, does anybody move into the first room?



As for your questions about infinite sums, allow me to stress that there is more involved in infinite sums than addition. If you start with the first number, then add the second number, then the third number, and so on, you will never have added an infinite number of terms; such an approach is simply inadequate.

[master_coda]

That's like saying if you rearrange the guests and create one vacancy out of none, you have a contradiction, so you can't rearrange the guests. Again, you're not showing why it's wrong, only that it's wrong and leads to a contradiction, not explaining what's fundamentally wrong with applying the associative law like that. And what is really being done that's considered "association in the infinite case?" I'm applying the associative law to only a finite nubmer of terms (2 terms), simply doing it an infinite number of times. It seems to me that a series that is absolute convergent allows this sort of association, so it's not that we can't use the association law an infinite number of times. It simply leads to a contradiction in certain cases. Again, I think it's contradictory to state that 1=0 is a contradiction, but creating 1 vacancy in a hotel with zero vacancies is not a contradiction.

Creating a vacany out of none isn't a contradiction, unless you assume that a hotel with an infinite number of rooms is supposed to behave exactly like a hotel with a finite number of rooms - there's no reason to make that assumption, so we don't. On the other hand, 1=0 is a contradiction according to any useful definition of numbers.

The reason addition is not associative in the infinite case is because defining it to be associative in an infinite case is because it cannot be done without rendering numbers useless.

[hello3719]

Suppose we arrange the sum 1-1+1-1+1...

by grouping them in packs of two we do get (1-1) +(1-1)+...
but this sum yields zero if and only if the number of terms is EVEN, Since this is an infinite sum then there is an infinite of terms. But infinite isn't a number so we can't judge if it is even or not, meaning that the grouping of these terms is inconclusive.

[wisky40]

starting with this identity 0=0, then 0=0+0+0+0+.........

it's true that when every 0 is broken into (1-1), the alternating ones (positives & negatives) are even. I think AKG forgot one (-1) of the last pair.

I can work it out in this way also:
0= n0
0= n(1-1)
0= (n-1+1)(1-1)
0= (n-1)(1-1)+(1-1)
0=1+(n-1)(1-1)-1
0=1+0+0+0+...............................-1=1-1=0 AKG is not showing (-1) from the last pair.

[matt grime]

I have yet to see any compelling reason from AKG why the 1=0 sum paradox is equivalent to the Hilbert hotel. The best so far is that they 'seem' the same.

Let us prove that there is not problem in the Hilbert hotel:

let S be the set of people who do not find a new room after rearrangement. If S is non;empty it has a least element, s, say. However by COnstruction s was asked to move to room s+1 # so S is empty.

[jcsd]

starting with this identity 0=0, then 0=0+0+0+0+.........

it's true that when every 0 is broken into (1-1), the alternating ones (positives & negatives) are even. I think AKG forgot one (-1) of the last pair.

I can work it out in this way also:
0= n0
0= n(1-1)
0= (n-1+1)(1-1)
0= (n-1)(1-1)+(1-1)
0=1+(n-1)(1-1)-1
0=1+0+0+0+...............................-1=1-1=0 AKG is not showing (-1) from the last pair.

But by definition there is no 'last pair'.

[AKG]

I have yet to see any compelling reason from AKG why the 1=0 sum paradox is equivalent to the Hilbert hotel. The best so far is that they 'seem' the same.Let v_n represent the number of vacancies created by the room change made by the n^{th} guest. A guest cannot enter an occupied room. No more than one guest can be in a room at any one time. If a guest is in a room, and moves to another room, then the room he/she was in becomes vacant by his or her leaving, and the vacant room he or she enters becomes occupied. \forall n \in \mathbb{N},\ v_n = 0. Now, we move all guests, so the number of vacancies created is:

\sum _{n=1} ^{\infty} v_n = \sum _{n=1} ^{\infty} 0 = 0

[matt grime]

That sum is not allowed or rather it won't be if only finitely many of the entries are zer, as you must want in order to do the paradoxical thing., so your model does not hold. Algebric sums must be finite, or they are formal series that do not represent a natural number. Try again.

[AKG]

What's not allowed? Formal series do not represent a natural number? Why is that? What do they represent? Surely they can represent a real number. Now would you suggest then that the 1 of the reals is not the zero of the 1 of the naturals?

[matt grime]

They do not necessarily have to represent anything. The alternating sums of plus and minus ones that you want is not a valid operation in the integers (nor in the reals, but we don't need to even think about the reals for this question). You've still not offered me any reason to suppose that your attempt to model the hilbert hotel leads you to the 0=1 paradox.

[matt grime]

Or let, me clairfy that, I don't see why the 0=1 paradox not being 'allowed' means you don't understand how the hilbert hotel works.

[AKG]

I offered a suggestion in post 18. Then you said a formal series cannot represent a natural number. I'd like you to elaborate on this. I'm no longer talking about the alternating sums of plus and minus ones.

What is wrong with the following

0 \in \mathbb{W}
\sum_{n=1} ^{\infty} 0 = 0
\therefore \sum_{n=1} ^{\infty} 0 \in \mathbb{W}

It actually sounds somewhat reasonable to me to suggest that infinite series cannot represent natural number, but I'd like you to elaborate. Thanks.

[matt grime]

Let us at least talk about the integers, which are a ring. The algebraic operations are defined only on pairs of numbers, and hence by induction on any finite collection of numbers. They are not defined for infinite sums. Full stop. It may be reasonable to say that an infinite sum of elements of Z will be in Z if and only if finitely many of the terms are non;zero, and indeed that is acceptable, but it does not make sense to sum infinitely many of them and expect to stay in the integers. nor is it supposed to nor is it necessary for us to attempt to do so.

THere are such things as formal infinite sums. These are algebraic, and you've probably met them in terms of generating functions.

In short, there is no need to sum an infinte set of integers, and there is no framework for us to be even allowed to do this. Please note this is an algebraic not an analytic statement.

[AKG]

Let us at least talk about the integers, which are a ring. The algebraic operations are defined only on pairs of numbers, and hence by induction on any finite collection of numbers. They are not defined for infinite sums.For one, associativity is only being applied to pairs of numbers, it just so happens that it is being applied to an infinite number of distinct pairs. What's technically wrong in that?Full stop. It may be reasonable to say that an infinite sum of elements of Z will be in Z if and only if finitely many of the terms are non;zero, and indeed that is acceptable, but it does not make sense to sum infinitely many of them and expect to stay in the integers.Yes, but I'm summing an infinte number of zeroes. Please review post # 18 and show me where I summed anything but zeroes together (this would constitute proving that \exists n \in \mathbb{W}\mbox{ such that } v_n \neq 0).

[matt grime]

USing the associativity is a red herring. That you are only doing things to finite parts of an infinite sum is immaterial, it's the fact that you're using an infinite sum inside Z that is wrong. I would also point out that you may add 1 to 1, that involves two elements of Z and gives an answer, yet adding the result of that up an infinite number of times doesn't mena you get an element of Z, does it?

Where in the axioms of a Ring do you see something that tells you how to add together an infinte number of elements in the ring? We are not dealing in analytic results here, remember, and it is a finitely generated ring, before some one starts to cite the infinite product of copies Z, as opposed to the infinite direct sum of copies of Z...

Post 18 is completely irrelevent, not to say wrong. v(1) is not zero, that is the whole point. the first person vacates room one and no one takes it from the existing set of guests thus freeing it for the new guest.

[AKG]

Post 18 is completely irrelevent, not to say wrong. v(1) is not zero, that is the whole point. the first person vacates room one and no one takes it from the existing set of guests thus freeing it for the new guest.Rather than just make a redundant circular argument like this, point out the sentence that makes the false assumption. Upon leaving a room, a guest creates a vacancy. Upon entering a (vacant) room, a guest eliminates a vacancy. Each guest moves out of then into a room, thereby creating then eilminating a vacancy. How many new vacancies are created by this individual process? Zero. How do an infinite number of such moves create a vacancy? Or create an infinite number of vacancies? Or eliminate a finite or infinite number of vacancies? I suppose if you want to provide a useful answer, you would have to suggest a good reason as to why it is wrong to model the situation as an infinite number of guest movements. Or if you can pull it out some how, explain how creating a vacancy and the eliminating one results in something other than a zero change in the net vacancies.

[master_coda]

Rather than just make a redundant circular argument like this, point out the sentence that makes the false assumption. Upon leaving a room, a guest creates a vacancy. Upon entering a (vacant) room, a guest eliminates a vacancy. Each guest moves out of then into a room, thereby creating then eilminating a vacancy. How many new vacancies are created by this individual process? Zero. How do an infinite number of such moves create a vacancy? Or create an infinite number of vacancies? Or eliminate a finite or infinite number of vacancies? I suppose if you want to provide a useful answer, you would have to suggest a good reason as to why it is wrong to model the situation as an infinite number of guest movements. Or if you can pull it out some how, explain how creating a vacancy and the eliminating one results in something other than a zero change in the net vacancies.

This argument is based on the erroneous assumption that \infty-\infty=0.

You can't simply conclude that because the number of guests leaving the room is the same as the number of guests entering a room then number of vacancies created must be zero, because that makes the assumption that "number of guests leaving" and "number of guests entering" are in fact numbers. In the infinite case they are not.

[AKG]

master_coda

This argument is based on the erroneous assumption that \infty - \infty = 0.

You can't simply conclude that because the number of guests leaving the room is the same as the number of guests entering a room then number of vacancies created must be zero, because that makes the assumption that "number of guests leaving" and "number of guests entering" are in fact numbers. In the infinite case they are not.

No, you've misunderstood. I'm not assuming infinity - infinity is zero. It seems you're misinterpreting my argument to be something like this:

\sum _{k=1} ^{\infty} 1 - \sum _{k=1} ^{\infty}1 = 0

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying:

\sum _{k=1} ^{\infty} (1-1) = 0

[hello3719]

still 0*infinity isn\t equal to 0.

[master_coda]

No, you've misunderstood. I'm not assuming infinity - infinity is zero. It seems you're misinterpreting my argument to be something like this:

\sum _{k=1} ^{\infty} 1 - \sum _{k=1} ^{\infty}1 = 0

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying:

\sum _{k=1} ^{\infty} (1-1) = 0

But you are making an "infinity - infinty = 0" argument. You're arguing that the number of people vacating a room is the same as the number of people taking a new room, so there must be zero new rooms available. You can't avoid that fact by trying to subtract the terms as you add them up instead of adding them all up first and subtracting them.


This "paradox" is just caused by the fact that when you have two infinite sets, you can compare their sizes in different ways to make it appear that one set or the other is smaller.

For example, if you have A = {0,1,2,...} and B = {1,2,...} then if you pair up every x in B with x in A, then A appears to be larger, since every element in B has been paired with an element in A, but there is still a 0 left over in A that has been paired up with nothing. On the only hand, if we pair up every x in B with x-1 in A, then the sets appear to be the same size, since there are no elements left over after we pair everything up.

So imagine that A = hotel rooms and B = people. Now according to one arrangement (x in B matched with x in A) room 0 is free, and according to the other arrangement there are no free rooms. You could also make an arrangement where every room is filled and there are still people left over with no room.

[hello3719]

and these 2 sums are the same, sum #1 is only a developped form of sum#2

[AKG]

But you are making an "infinity - infinty = 0" argument. You're arguing that the number of people vacating a room is the same as the number of people taking a new room, so there must be zero new rooms available. You can't avoid that fact by trying to subtract the terms as you add them up instead of adding them all up first and subtracting them.No, if you're going to repeat that, I'm not going to bother repeating that you're misinterpreting. I'm not saying that the number of people leaving the room is the number of people entering the room, I'm saying that each move accounts for a zero change in vacancies, and a countably infinite number of moves which each result in a net change of zero in vacancies will create a net change of zero in vacancies. Find the sentence in post 18 that is flawed.

[AKG]

and these 2 sums are the same, sum #1 is only a developped form of sum#2If you think that Infinite_Sum 1 - Infinite_Sum 1 is the same thing as Infinite_Sum (1-1), you're wrong. Infinite_Sum 1 is undefined, and there's no way undefined - undefined has any meaning, especially not the meaning Infinite_Sum (1-1).

[master_coda]

Let v_n represent the number of vacancies created by the room change made by the n^{th} guest. A guest cannot enter an occupied room. No more than one guest can be in a room at any one time. If a guest is in a room, and moves to another room, then the room he/she was in becomes vacant by his or her leaving, and the vacant room he or she enters becomes occupied. \forall n \in \mathbb{N},\ v_n = 0. Now, we move all guests, so the number of vacancies created is:

\sum _{n=1} ^{\infty} v_n = \sum _{n=1} ^{\infty} 0 = 0

Well, one problem is that you assume that you can count the number of vacancies by adding up the vacancies created by each individual. All this really tells us is that a finite number of moves will not change the number of vacancies (which is correct).

Using an infinite sum does not automatically give you the result in the infinite case, just like you cannot always find the value of a function f(x) at x=a by taking the limit as x -> a.

[AKG]

Well, one problem is that you assume that you can count the number of vacancies by adding up the vacancies created by each individual.What's wrong with this? So far you've simply said that I can't do it.

[master_coda]

What's wrong with this? So far you've simply said that I can't do it.

Because you are using limits. Just like limits as x -> a do not always give you the same answer as the result at x = a, limits as n -> infinity do not always give you the same answer as the result at infinity.

[AKG]

Where exactly am I using limits?

[master_coda]

Where exactly am I using limits?

\sum _{n=1} ^{\infty} v_n=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{n=1}^N v_n

This is the definition of an infinite sum. This definition is used because, well, it works, and most of the time all we need is to take the limit as n -> infinity. Infinite sums aren't much use for working with the infinite case itself.

[AKG]

\sum _{n=1} ^{\infty} v_n=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{n=1}^N v_n

This is the definition of an infinite sum. This definition is used because, well, it works, and most of the time all we need is to take the limit as n -> infinity. Infinite sums aren't much use for working with the infinite case itself.I was going to note the fact that the limit is implied in the infinite series, but I didn't seriously think that you would object to that. And judging by what you said, I don't see a serious objection.

[master_coda]

I was going to note the fact that the limit is implied in the infinite series, but I didn't seriously think that you would object to that. And judging by what you said, I don't see a serious objection.

The fact that you're using a limit to describe the infinite case means you're assuming that the infinite case can be approximated by the finite case. If you want to do math, you have to prove that assumption. You can't just shrug off that problem with a "I don't see a serious objection".

[AKG]

Are you suggesting that evaluating an infinite series provides an "approximation" to the real answer? Please elaborate.

[master_coda]

Are you suggesting that evaluating an infinite series provides an "approximation" to the real answer? Please elaborate.

Usually the limit is the "real answer", in the sense that the limit has all the properties that we care about. A lot of the time, we even define the "real answer" as the one the limit gives us.

"Approximation" was really a poor word to use. I was trying to convey the idea that limits as N -> infinity are a way for trying to figure out what occurs in the infinite case by extrapolating from what happens when the finite case becomes arbitrarily large.

However, showing something it true for arbitrarily large finite cases isn't the same as showing it is true for the infinite case. Normally we don't even care, since the limit tells us everything we want to know anyway. But in cases where you can actually find an answer for the infinite case without using limits, you have to remember that the result of a limiting process may give a different answer since the limit does not actually prove anything about the infinite case itself.

[matt grime]

Rather than just make a redundant circular argument like this, point out the sentence that makes the false assumption. Upon leaving a room, a guest creates a vacancy. Upon entering a (vacant) room, a guest eliminates a vacancy. Each guest moves out of then into a room, thereby creating then eilminating a vacancy. How many new vacancies are created by this individual process? Zero. How do an infinite number of such moves create a vacancy? Or create an infinite number of vacancies? Or eliminate a finite or infinite number of vacancies? I suppose if you want to provide a useful answer, you would have to suggest a good reason as to why it is wrong to model the situation as an infinite number of guest movements. Or if you can pull it out some how, explain how creating a vacancy and the eliminating one results in something other than a zero change in the net vacancies.


Who moves into the first room after it's vacated? No one, that's where the vacancy comes from. Adding up and subtracting an infintie number of 1s does not model the situation because you can't add up and subtract an infinite number of ones in a well defined way just using the rules of the integers.

Got it? No one enters room 1, room 1 is then left empty....


Plus you're examing the guests. That is obviosuly the wrong thing to do: think about it, after the guests move there are still the same 'number' of guests in the same 'number' of rooms. What's important is the rooms they aren't in. Like the first room which is obviously left vacant for the new guest.


SOrry, to keep adding, but more things keep striking me about this. AKG, do you understand how to handle infinite sets? Particulary the ones ordered by N? You are almost going for the 'but the last guest has no where to go thing'. Do you at least see that room one becomes vacant? Now the only issue would be if some other guest had no room to go to. As i posted quite a while ago we can prove that there are no such guests by examining the first such, if there are some there must be a first one...

SO clearly a room becomes vacant, and your model doesn't allow this, hence your model is incorrect. Change the model.

[AKG]

Who moves into the first room after it's vacated? No one, that's where the vacancy comes from. Adding up and subtracting an infintie number of 1s does not model the situation because you can't add up and subtract an infinite number of ones in a well defined way just using the rules of the integers.

Got it? No one enters room 1, room 1 is then left empty....I understand the paradox, this is unnecessary. I want to know what is wrong with my reasoning. And if you think I'm adding an infinite number of ones, then subtracting, please don't bother replying.

SOrry, to keep adding, but more things keep striking me about this. AKG, do you understand how to handle infinite sets? Particulary the ones ordered by N? You are almost going for the 'but the last guest has no where to go thing'. Do you at least see that room one becomes vacant? Now the only issue would be if some other guest had no room to go to. As i posted quite a while ago we can prove that there are no such guests by examining the first such, if there are some there must be a first one...

SO clearly a room becomes vacant, and your model doesn't allow this, hence your model is incorrect. Change the model.Wrong. Your model assumes that you can freely associate rooms to guests, but that leads to a contradiction in that you've created 1 vacancy from none. If you don't see this as a contradiction, say what's wrong with my model. Don't say it's wrong because it doesn't fit your answer.

I understand that by the model using infinite sets it appears this is possible, and by my model which you haven't given any good reason to abandon, it is not. Another approach. Assume it takes zero seconds for a guest to move to the next room, but before guest 1 can move to room 2, room 2 must be vacated. For guest 2 to move to room 3, room 3 must be vacated. For guest n to move to room n+1, room n+1 must be vacated. Ultimately, this depends on the "last" room being vacated, but since no last room exists, this process is impossible. Set theory suggests that a bijection can be drawn between N and N\{1}, but I believe this leads to a contradiction, so either set theory is wrong, or I am and my argument is an inaccurate model of the situation. What is wrong with my post#18 argument. I'd like, if you can, pick our the line that is wrong. Is it wrong to assume that this can be modelled as an infinite number of moves? Is it wrong to assume that a guest moving into then out of a room can have no effect on the vacancies? I assume it's the latter, but if so, please give an answer other than "because set theory says so," I know that already. I'm not even assuming it's wrong, I just want to know how to defeat the possible objection that I've made.

[AKG]

master_coda

I think if assume (or define) that an infinite sequence of partial sums will converge on a real number, and you can show that for every arbitrarily small epsilon you can find an N such that the difference between the Nth partial sum and the proposed limit is less than epsilon, you can show that the sum cannot be any real number other than the limit. However, I don't know if it's right to assume that the sum of an infinite number of terms (even if they converge) must be a real number. Addition of infinite numbers is not part of the axioms, so I suppose it's just a definition that the sum will be real (if it converges).

[hello3719]

\sum _{n=1} ^{\infty} v_n = \sum _{n=1} ^{\infty} 0 = 0

The sum isn't equal to 0, it is indeterminate. since 0*infinity is indeterminate
unless you put limit

[master_coda]

master_coda

I think if assume (or define) that an infinite sequence of partial sums will converge on a real number, and you can show that for every arbitrarily small epsilon you can find an N such that the difference between the Nth partial sum and the proposed limit is less than epsilon, you can show that the sum cannot be any real number other than the limit. However, I don't know if it's right to assume that the sum of an infinite number of terms (even if they converge) must be a real number. Addition of infinite numbers is not part of the axioms, so I suppose it's just a definition that the sum will be real (if it converges).

The only problem is that there isn't really a good reason to assume that the infinite case can be modelled by taking the limit of the finite case. This isn't a problem when the only value you actually care about is what the series converges to, but if you actually care about the value produced by carrying out an infinite number of additions, then infinite series just don't tell you anything.

So basically, you could define the result of an infinite number of additions as the value that an arbitrarily large finite number of addition converges to, but since things tend to break we we assume that the infinite case must act like the finite case, this doesn't seem to be a good idea.

[pseudocarp]

AKG, here is a question for you. Have you played around much with that infinite sum you originally mentioned? Because there is an infinite group of 1 and -1's to play around with, you can group them and do things that seem misleading. What I mean is, you can say, "since we have an infinitude of +1 and an infinitude of -1, we can swap out any given finite number of signs."

So for instance, we could do this:

0 = (1-1) + etc
0 = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + etc
now you have the basic pieces and can rearrange them however you wish; in particular, you can go to infinity with ease:
0 = (1 + 1 - 1) + (1 + 1 - 1) + etc
which is
0 = 1 + 1 + 1 + ... = + infinity
and the same thing can be done to tend towards negative infinity. You can also group the 1's to make any number you wish - e.g.
0 = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1) - 1 + 1 - ... = (1 + 1 + 1 + 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ... = 4

I know seeing the last sum you want to say, but what happened to the two negative 1's that got switched? The answer is, with an infinite number of positive 1's, you can always 'make some more' to cancel out any finite group of negative 1's - in short, you can because there's no rule saying you can't.

Controversy over the use of such sums in proofs is the reason infinite arithmetic came to be separately studied. How convenient, to use a sum in your proof that can be made to equal any number.

You have to use the rules of infinite arithmetic in considering Hilbert's hotel - not looking at each finite step, but taking into account the fact that two infinities that differ by a finite number are commensurable.

[matt grime]

Wrong. Your model assumes that you can freely associate rooms to guests, but that leads to a contradiction in that you've created 1 vacancy from none. If you don't see this as a contradiction, say what's wrong with my model. Don't say it's wrong because it doesn't fit your answer.

i have no model, what model of mine are you refering to? as you are attempting to model a situation and your model says that something is impossible when it is possible (in the imaginary world where there are an infinite number of rooms) then your model of it is wrong, it doesn't fit the "observed" data.




I understand that by the model using infinite sets it appears this is possible, and by my model which you haven't given any good reason to abandon, it is not. Another approach. Assume it takes zero seconds for a guest to move to the next room, but before guest 1 can move to room 2, room 2 must be vacated. For guest 2 to move to room 3, room 3 must be vacated. For guest n to move to room n+1, room n+1 must be vacated. Ultimately, this depends on the "last" room being vacated, but since no last room exists, this process is impossible.

rubbish, this is an idealized situation, there is no need to consider these problems. it's an hotel with an infinite number of rooms, i don't think reality has any place in the discussion, that is those things that are constructible in a finite number of steps.


moreover, here's a way round it. send all the guests out for an hour, when they come back tell them to go to the next numbered room. their luggage may be moved at later convenient time for all parties

Set theory suggests that a bijection can be drawn between N and N\{1}, but I believe this leads to a contradiction, so either set theory is wrong, or I am and my argument is an inaccurate model of the situation. What is wrong with my post#18 argument. I'd like, if you can, pick our the line that is wrong. Is it wrong to assume that this can be modelled as an infinite number of moves? Is it wrong to assume that a guest moving into then out of a room can have no effect on the vacancies? I assume it's the latter, but if so, please give an answer other than "because set theory says so," I know that already. I'm not even assuming it's wrong, I just want to know how to defeat the possible objection that I've made.


you've not actually made any real objections, so why don't you repost here your alleged objection, rather than make people read back three pages. It simply appears that you don't know what the definition of cardinality is. Cardinality of infinte sets cannot be deduced from simply adding things up then subtracting them, otherwise there are no odd numbers are there?

the simple objection to your post 18 is that you are using the rules of finite arithemetic as if it applies to the infinite sums you cite. that is not true, and has no place in algebra. simply that.

I beleive post 18 is error for the same reasons as I stated above: it deosn't matter waht rooms the people move into it only matters waht they vacate. room 1 is vacated, and no one enters it. your 'model' does not indicate this at any point. you're misusing infinite arithmetic. where do you have any evidence you're allowed to do this? you don't even need to look at the reals, and even there what you write is still wrong.

[pseudocarp]

Dear matt grime,

why not be civil? Are you writing in this forum in order to educate, instruct, clarify? It seems to me you are on some kind of petty power trip. If someone does not get your explanation, either go slower, or give up. It is unpleasant to read jerky posts, and surely is both obnoxious and unenlightening to repeat yourself. p-carp

[Hurkyl]

A correction:


\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 0 = 0


is actually correct. (and this has nothing to do with ∞ * 0)

[master_coda]

A correction:


\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} 0 = 0


is actually correct. (and this has nothing to do with ∞ * 0)

Oh, that is the correct way to evaluate the infinite sum. It's just that the sum does not actually represent the "number of vacancies created" in the infinite case.

[hello3719]

yea sorry my mistake

[matt grime]

Dear matt grime,

why not be civil? Are you writing in this forum in order to educate, instruct, clarify? It seems to me you are on some kind of petty power trip. If someone does not get your explanation, either go slower, or give up. It is unpleasant to read jerky posts, and surely is both obnoxious and unenlightening to repeat yourself. p-carp


if people don't get the simple explanations, and apparently haven't taken time to consider them and think them through, what is wrong with repeating a simple argument? replies of mine depend upon the person i reply to. if they act lilke cranks they get treated like cranks.

want another interpretation? simple. hilbet's hotel is just offering an analogy of the fact that there is a bijection between N and N\{1}; why does the fact that you cannot do arithmetic with infinite sums have any bearing on this unless you're thinking about it in the wrong way; the moving of guests is not as important as the rooms that are freed.


so, shall we restate the objections one last time? you may not use the rules of arithmetic on infinite sums like this, in particular the alternating sum of plus and minus one. You do not evaluate infinite cardinalities in this fashion, you must use bijections, that is how cardinality is defined, not by adding things up and subtracting things.

[AKG]

matt grime

rubbish, this is an idealized situation, there is no need to consider these problems. it's an hotel with an infinite number of rooms, i don't think reality has any place in the discussion, that is those things that are constructible in a finite number of steps.Of course you do. You argue that for any guest, n, there is a room, n+1. My objection is that he can only enter room n+1 if n+1 is empty.

moreover, here's a way round it. send all the guests out for an hour, when they come back tell them to go to the next numbered room. their luggage may be moved at later convenient time for all parties[/quote]That's the obvious answer, but then this suggests that when the uncountably infinite number of coaches with uncountably infinite number of guests arrive, everyone steps out into the courtyard, and then they all just go into the rooms, without having to do anything fancy like shift down all the guests in prime numbered rooms (or whatever the solution is for that case).

want another interpretation? simple. hilbet's hotel is just offering an analogy of the fact that there is a bijection between N and N\{1};That's plainly obvious, my point is simply that current set theory provides this solution, and I suggest that it contradicts something that's more fundamentally true, or that it is an inappropriate model for this situation. So rather than saying "according to set theory, this is true, Q.E.D." show why it is a better model, or how it overcomes certain objections, etc. I highly doubt you'll be able to do this simply because of the fact that you aren't reading what I'm saying.

you may not use the rules of arithmetic on infinite sums like this, in particular the alternating sum of plus and minus one.For the last time, this is irrelevant and I'm doing no such thing.

why does the fact that you cannot do arithmetic with infinite sums have any bearing on this unless you're thinking about it in the wrong way; the moving of guests is not as important as the rooms that are freed.If you already presuppose that rooms are freed, I can see you'll be of no help. I'm not trying to be difficult. I understand the problem very well and I can understand we can easily map N to N\{1}, and thus it appears we can place each individual in one of those rooms. But at the same time, I suppose I'm saying that I don't think that addresses the whole issue. Perhaps, in another way, I believe that a better way to deal with infinites would be desirable. One that can make sense of the fact that we can map N to N\{1} but at the same time be able to distinguish the two sets; i.e. the size of a set after pulling out 4 of the elements can still be infinite but not the same infinity. Hopefully this isn't necessary, which is why I'm trying to see if set theory offers a more fundamental or better explanation as to why an infinite number of moves can change the number of vacancies no individual move can. At any rate, I'm willing to leave this at that; until I can think of a better way, I can live with the existing solution to Hilbert's paradox, I was looking for potentially better ways to deal with infinites, that's all.

[Hurkyl]

One that can make sense of the fact that we can map N to N\{1} but at the same time be able to distinguish the two sets;

Well, one contains the number one, and one does not. The latter is a subset of the former.


the size of a set after pulling out 4 of the elements can still be infinite but not the same infinity.

Well, the size of a set (more precisely, the cardinality of a set) is, by definition based on 1-1 correspondences, so there's not much hope here.


I was looking for potentially better ways to deal with infinites, that's all.

For the most part, the goal is to learn what you can't do with infinities. Then, the tools and techniques that still remain, are the good ways to deal with infinities. :smile:

[master_coda]

That's plainly obvious, my point is simply that current set theory provides this solution, and I suggest that it contradicts something that's more fundamentally true, or that it is an inappropriate model for this situation. So rather than saying "according to set theory, this is true, Q.E.D." show why it is a better model, or how it overcomes certain objections, etc.


Well, the "fundamentally true" argument is a complete waste of time argument. Anyone can assert that their interpretation, or definitions, or axioms, or whatever is more fundamentally true, so this kind of an assertion never goes anywhere useful.


Besides, most of your objections seem to just be demanding some sort of philosophical explaination as to why infinite sets don't behave the same as finite sets. Or why an infinite number of moving people doesn't behave like a finite number of moving people. Can you give us a reason why they should behave in the same way?

Math says infinite things don't work like finite things because when we try to force infinite things to behave like finite things, contradictions keep popping up. I don't understand why we need another reason to stop trying to model infinity with finite things.

[AKG]

Well, the "fundamentally true" argument is a complete waste of time argument. Anyone can assert that their interpretation, or definitions, or axioms, or whatever is more fundamentally true, so this kind of an assertion never goes anywhere useful.If anyone can assert their axioms to be more fundamentally true, and two consistent logics with contradictory axioms exist, then we have problems, because both can't be true.

Besides, most of your objections seem to just be demanding some sort of philosophical explaination as to why infinite sets don't behave the same as finite sets. Or why an infinite number of moving people doesn't behave like a finite number of moving people. Can you give us a reason why they should behave in the same way?I have only said thing along the lines of "a person leaving then going into a room doesn't effect the number of vacancies." Whatever room he's vacated, he's taken a room that was previously vacant, netting zero vacancies. I don't see a problem there, so why is there?

Math says infinite things don't work like finite things because when we try to force infinite things to behave like finite things, contradictions keep popping up. I don't understand why we need another reason to stop trying to model infinity with finite things.I don't understand your last sentence. And does "math say" that infinite things simply cannot behave at all like finite things, or does "math" simply not know how to yet?

[master_coda]

If anyone can assert their axioms to be more fundamentally true, and two consistent logics with contradictory axioms exist, then we have problems, because both can't be true.

So what is more fundamentally true: Euclidean geometry, Hyperbolic geometry or Elliptic geometry? They are all consistent geometries, and have mutually contradictory axioms.

Or we could just recognize that arguing about whose axioms and definitions are more fundamentally true is a waste of time.

I have only said thing along the lines of "a person leaving then going into a room doesn't effect the number of vacancies." Whatever room he's vacated, he's taken a room that was previously vacant, netting zero vacancies. I don't see a problem there, so why is there?

Well, you're again assuming that a infinite number of moves should act like a finite number of moves.

I don't understand your last sentence. And does "math say" that infinite things simply cannot behave at all like finite things, or does "math" simply not know how to yet?

Well, we can prove that {1,2,3,...} people can be placed in {1,2,3,...} rooms and can be placed in {2,3,4,...} rooms. So any set theory that allows the use of infinite sets and functions is inconsistent with a theory that forces infinite sets to behave like finite sets.

You can produce a set theory where all sets act like finite sets. That would require you to throw away almost all of set theory, and probably require you to completely reformulate any theory that makes use of infinite sets (which probably isn't possible for most theories).

So what would this new forumation of set theory gain us?

[AKG]

So what is more fundamentally true: Euclidean geometry, Hyperbolic geometry or Elliptic geometry? They are all consistent geometries, and have mutually contradictory axioms.Do they, or do they just deal with different things?
Well, you're again assuming that a infinite number of moves should act like a finite number of moves.No, I'm assuming an individual move should behave like an individual move no matter how many individual moves there are.

[master_coda]

Do they, or do they just deal with different things?


No, they have mutually contradictory axioms.

No, I'm assuming an individual move should behave like an individual move no matter how many individual moves there are.

But an individual move does behave like an individual move. There is no reason to believe that for an infinite number of moves to create a vacancy, you must have an individual move that does.

[AKG]

No, they have mutually contradictory axioms.Interesting. Could you provide a link that elaborates?
But an individual move does behave like an individual move. There is no reason to believe that for an infinite number of moves to create a vacancy, you must have an individual move that does.An individual move does not change the number of vacancies. The entire process is nothing more than an infinite number of individual moves. The entire process is nothing more than the "sum" of an infinite number of individual processes. If this process is nothing more than an infinite number of individual processes, and none of these individual processes create any change, then how does the whole process create a change? It's analogous to saying that pouring the contents of an infinite number of empty buckets into a tub will not add 1 or 2 or an infinite number of buckets-worth of stuff to the tub.

[master_coda]

Interesting. Could you provide a link that elaborates?


I don't actually have a good link handy, although you can probably just google for "hyperbolic geometry" and find out a lot about it. The basic idea for hyperbolic geometry is that you replace Euclid's parallel lines postulate with its negation (and so the axioms are clearly mutually contradictory) and you get an equally consistent theory of geometry.

An individual move does not change the number of vacancies. The entire process is nothing more than an infinite number of individual moves. The entire process is nothing more than the "sum" of an infinite number of individual processes. If this process is nothing more than an infinite number of individual processes, and none of these individual processes create any change, then how does the whole process create a change? It's analogous to saying that pouring the contents of an infinite number of empty buckets into a tub will not add 1 or 2 or an infinite number of buckets-worth of stuff to the tub.

But the entire process is not just the sum of its parts. At least, you've given us no good reason to assume that it is. And since assuming that it is the sum of its parts means we have to discard infinite sets (or else we do not have a consistent theory) this assumption seems to be a very useless and unhelpful one.

[matt grime]

You need to stop thinking about infinite sets etc only in terms of finite parts of them. It appears my prediction that you don't understand what cardinality means is correct. Why do you keep saying that you aren't using infinite sums and then use them? (you are summing the vacancies created and annihilated, and started the thread with the 0=1 paradox didn't you?)

There is an arthmetic involving infinite cardinals developed by Conway; there are ordinal numbers too, perhaps they may be of interest to you.


Here's an example which demonstrates why you can't think of things one at a time and presume it all works out:

consider the set of numbers {1,1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5....}u{0}

if we examine them in your prefered system of order then we see that no number in the set is 0; the first isn't the second isn't and so on, examinig them one at a time never gets to the 0, yet it's clearly there.


Usually the Hilbert Hotel has a countable number of rooms, hence we can ask people to move to the next one, so why on earth there should be a way of accomodating an uncountable number of guests is beyond me.

[Hurkyl]

Interesting. Could you provide a link that elaborates

Euclidean geometry has an axiom that states:

"Given a line and a point, there is exactly one line through that point parallel to that line"

Hyperbolic geometry has an axiom that states:

"There exists a line and a point such that there is not exactly one line through that point parallel to that line"

[AKG]

Euclidean geometry has an axiom that states:

"Given a line and a point, there is exactly one line through that point parallel to that line"

Hyperbolic geometry has an axiom that states:

"There exists a line and a point such that there is not exactly one line through that point parallel to that line"But don't these geometries deal with spaces with different curvature (I think that's the right word)?

[AKG]

You need to stop thinking about infinite sets etc only in terms of finite parts of them. It appears my prediction that you don't understand what cardinality means is correct.No, it's false.Why do you keep saying that you aren't using infinite sums and then use them?Why don't you read! You keep claiming that I'm taking a sum of alternating 1's and -1's, or something to that effect. This is really pathetic, so I'm not going to bother again explaining what I'm actually doing and what you for some reason fail to accept.

Here's an example which demonstrates why you can't think of things one at a time and presume it all works out:

consider the set of numbers {1,1/2,1/3,1/4,1/5....}u{0}Poor analogy. My argument says that no single guest creates a vacancy, so it doesn't make sense to say that the whole movement somehow does. In other words, if my argument were, "no single element of this set is 0, therefore the set does not contain zero," but it's not like that.

[AKG]

But the entire process is not just the sum of its parts. At least, you've given us no good reason to assume that it is. And since assuming that it is the sum of its parts means we have to discard infinite sets (or else we do not have a consistent theory) this assumption seems to be a very useless and unhelpful one.I gave you the bucket analogy. What's more, your attitude seems very closed-minded. What about another number characteristic to a set (like the cardinal number) but gave us some other information. Saying that it simply can't be done because no one has before is a poor attitude. I was reading some history of set theory, and remember reading that Kronecker was seriously discouraging Cantor from publishing his set theory because of the way it dealt with infinites, however, it's a good thing he went ahead. Later, paradoxes in the theory were discovered, e.g. Russel's and Cantor's paradoxes, but these were later solved using a reformulation of set theory (ZFC I believe). The assumption that we can't find a better way to deal with infinites (as Cantor and then Zermelo and Frankel and whoever else did) is a useless and unhelpful one.

[matt grime]

Also, why is it permissible to say that all of those guests who move over actually do find a room (leaving one vacancy) and, there isn't always going to be one guest with no room (even if we can't say he's the "last" guest) but it is not permissible to do the following:

0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
0 = (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + ...
0 = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ...
0 = 1 + (-1) + 1 + (-1) + 1 + (-1) + ...
0 = 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + ...
0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + ...
0 = 1 ?


page 1 post 1.

moving the first guest makes the first room available and no one fills it, why doesn't that make a vacany? because he has to move into room 2 and the person there has to then move and so on in an infinite number of moves that can't occur "really"? The issue isn't about the physical meaning of moving rooms, it's just about bijections from an infinite set to itself, not about doing algorithms one step at a time: all the guests move simultaneously, what's wrong with that?

[AKG]

page 1 post 1.

moving the first guest makes the first room available and no one fills it, why doesn't that make a vacany? because he has to move into room 2 and the person there has to then move and so on in an infinite number of moves that can't occur "really"? The issue isn't about the physical meaning of moving rooms, it's just about bijections from an infinite set to itself, not about doing algorithms one step at a time: all the guests move simultaneously, what's wrong with that?Why are you still on about page 1, post 1? We've already gone over why that's wrong. Honestly, this is really pathetic.

[matt grime]

Ok, so we can leave the algebra and focus on the post 18 argument about the each guest vacating one room and taking one room and there being a net change in vacancies of zero, yet there is room 1 free.

We can at least agree that the model is wrong because it does not reflect the 'reality' so there must be soemthing wrong in the belief that *counting* the rooms that are empty can be done by *counting* the rooms that are full. The net effect you are calculating is exactly showing that there are an infinite number of rooms (that is assuming the axiom of choice) as it just shows that the set of guests/rooms is in bijection with a proper subset of itself. That is all that shows, why must it show how many vacancies are created? we can see that it doesn't, therefore the argument doesn't apply there. So, by what argument do you claim that your counting model is correct?

[master_coda]

I gave you the bucket analogy. What's more, your attitude seems very closed-minded. What about another number characteristic to a set (like the cardinal number) but gave us some other information. Saying that it simply can't be done because no one has before is a poor attitude. I was reading some history of set theory, and remember reading that Kronecker was seriously discouraging Cantor from publishing his set theory because of the way it dealt with infinites, however, it's a good thing he went ahead. Later, paradoxes in the theory were discovered, e.g. Russel's and Cantor's paradoxes, but these were later solved using a reformulation of set theory (ZFC I believe). The assumption that we can't find a better way to deal with infinites (as Cantor and then Zermelo and Frankel and whoever else did) is a useless and unhelpful one.

Your bucket analogy doesn't tell us anything useful, either, since we have no way of knowing how an infinite number of buckets would do anything. Your analogy amounts to nothing more than "finite things in reality work this way, so shouldn't math always give the same results, even for infinite things?"

You aren't exactly providing helpful suggestions. You've really done nothing but point out results from set theory that seem counter-intuitive to you and then complain that we should be doing more to make set theory work the way you think it should.

There are lots of things that can be done to find different formulations of set theory, but the particular suggestions that you are giving are not useful. The only way to implement them would be to forbid large classes of operations to avoid having those operations contradict the properties you want. So we should just throw away all of these operations so that you have have a more philosophically pleasing version of set theory?

And that "poor attitude" remark is really pathetic. That's the same kind of thing I hear from people who insist they have a perpetual motion machine, or a solution to the halting problem, or have a bijection from that natural numbers to the real numbers. Apparently, being unwilling to waste time on something that's provably impossible is just a "poor attitude", or being "closed minded".

[AKG]

Your bucket analogy doesn't tell us anything useful, either, since we have no way of knowing how an infinite number of buckets would do anything. Your analogy amounts to nothing more than "finite things in reality work this way, so shouldn't math always give the same results, even for infinite things?"No way of knowing? If you're stumped as to how much water an infinite number of empty buckets will contribute to a tub when poured into the tub, I don't see any reason to discuss this with you. Of course you can easily suggest that without a rigourous model for an infinite number of buckets, any common sense argument is inadmissible. I suppose that's fair enough, but not very constructive.

You aren't exactly providing helpful suggestions. You've really done nothing but point out results from set theory that seem counter-intuitive to you and then complain that we should be doing more to make set theory work the way you think it should.I'm complaining about nothing.

There are lots of things that can be done to find different formulations of set theory, but the particular suggestions that you are giving are not useful.Which suggestions?The only way to implement them would be to forbid large classes of operations to avoid having those operations contradict the properties you want. So we should just throw away all of these operations so that you have have a more philosophically pleasing version of set theory?Do you have any proofs for what is the only way to do this?

And that "poor attitude" remark is really pathetic. That's the same kind of thing I hear from people who insist they have a perpetual motion machine, or a solution to the halting problem, or have a bijection from that natural numbers to the real numbers. Apparently, being unwilling to waste time on something that's provably impossible is just a "poor attitude", or being "closed minded".It's great you can be so quick to rule out any new ideas. The fact is, I'm not even providing any new ideas, I suggested they may be helpful. You do have a poor attitude, and if it makes you feel better to class my objections as the same as those suggesting they can build a perpetual motion device, that's fine. What's wrong with suggesting another way to characterize sets that allows for what we have about bijections, but gives some quantifiable meaning to what happens when you add one element to an infinite set?

[master_coda]

No way of knowing? If you're stumped as to how much water an infinite number of empty buckets will contribute to a tub when poured into the tub, I don't see any reason to discuss this with you. Of course you can easily suggest that without a rigourous model for an infinite number of buckets, any common sense argument is inadmissible. I suppose that's fair enough, but not very constructive.


How is it more constructive to pretend that there is a common sense argument to be made? If there isn't any way test something physically, then pretending that one particular interpretation has more physical validity than another is even less constructive. At least the "common sense arguments are worthless" point of view is honest.

It's great you can be so quick to rule out any new ideas. The fact is, I'm not even providing any new ideas, I suggested they may be helpful. You do have a poor attitude, and if it makes you feel better to class my objections as the same as those suggesting they can build a perpetual motion device, that's fine. What's wrong with suggesting another way to characterize sets that allows for what we have about bijections, but gives some quantifiable meaning to what happens when you add one element to an infinite set?

Hmm, I see. So despite the fact that you've made no effort to learn anything, or even listen to anything that anyone has said to you, you are going to insist that it is I who has the poor attitude. That's actually the most interesting paradox you've mentioned so far.

[AKG]

Here's an argument along your lines of reasoning. The fact that there exists a bijection between N and N\{1} proves nothing. It proves that for each guest, n, there exists a unique room n+1, but this doesn't prove that guest n can enter that room. If we have a finite set of rooms and guests, then we can say that if for some guest, n, there exists a room r(n), then guest n can occupy r(n), but there's no reason to believe the same logic that works with finite sets can be applied to infinite sets. The same "reason" that suggests that we cannot treat the effect of moving an infinite number of individual guests as the net effect of an infinite number of individual moves is the reason that suggests that treating the relationship between the existence of a room and the ability to enter a room in a finite case as the same relationship in the infinite case. Of course, no such sensible "reason" exists, as far as I can tell.Hmm, I see. So despite the fact that you've made no effort to learn anything, or even listen to anything that anyone has said to you, you are going to insist that it is I who has the poor attitude. That's actually the most interesting paradox you've mentioned so far.Of course I've listened and learned. I've found a satisfactory reason as to why the 0 = 1 argument doesn't hold (i.e. 0 = 0 + 0 + ... = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ..., etc). However, all you've managed to say is that any other formulation of set theory is provably wrong, and there is no point in trying.

[master_coda]

Here's an argument along your lines of reasoning. The fact that there exists a bijection between N and N\{1} proves nothing. It proves that for each guest, n, there exists a unique room n+1, but this doesn't prove that guest n can enter that room. If we have a finite set of rooms and guests, then we can say that if for some guest, n, there exists a room r(n), then guest n can occupy r(n), but there's no reason to believe the same logic that works with finite sets can be applied to infinite sets. The same "reason" that suggests that we cannot treat the effect of moving an infinite number of individual guests as the net effect of an infinite number of individual moves is the reason that suggests that treating the relationship between the existence of a room and the ability to enter a room in a finite case as the same relationship in the infinite case. Of course, no such sensible "reason" exists, as far as I can tell.

Except that all we are trying to prove is that every guest has a room. We don't have to refer to an infinite number of guests to do that. Your proof required you to not only show that every move did not create a vacancy, but to assume that the aggregation of all the moves takes on certain properties just because its individual moves do.

Besides, you've entirely missed the point I was making earlier. If you dig deep enough, you'll probably find out that there is some definition that just basically says your interpretation is wrong and the standard one is right. This is not based on any "fundamental truth", but simply the fact that the standard interpretation allows us to do a lot of useful work with infinite sets, while your interpretation does not (because if forces us to discard so many powerful concepts as inconsistent).

I've found a satisfactory reason as to why the 0 = 1 argument doesn't hold (i.e. 0 = 0 + 0 + ... = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + ..., etc). However, all you've managed to say is that any other formulation of set theory is provably wrong, and there is no point in trying.

You haven't understood the point I'm making at all. The problem with your interpretation not that established theories are "right" or that your theory is "wrong". It's just that all your interpretation logically contradicts a lot of existing theory and constructions, and doesn't really give us any useful new constructions in return.

There's certainly nothing sacred about ZF set theory - there are a lot of other approaches to set theory (such as von Neumann-Bernays-Goedel set theory, New Foundations, etc.) and none of them are more "right". But most of the more recent formulations were attempts to strengthen set theory, not to weaken it by forcing us to discard large classes of constructions.

And we really would have no choice by to weaken set theory (any version of it) to accept your interpretation. By the very definition of consistency, a consistent theory cannot have both a statement and a separate, contradictory statement be true. If anything in the existing theory contradicted your interpretation, we would have no other choice but to discard it (and any other equivalent construction). So incorporating your interpretation really would require us to throw stuff away and not be able to replace it - no amount of trying will allow us to make a contradiction go away, all we can do is throw out one of the statements (and of course anything equivalent to that statement). Even then, there's no guarantee we can still produce a consistent theory, but that's the least we have to do.

[AKG]

Except that all we are trying to prove is that every guest has a room. We don't have to refer to an infinite number of guests to do that. Your proof required you to not only show that every move did not create a vacancy, but to assume that the aggregation of all the moves takes on certain properties just because its individual moves do.Yours does the same. You show that each individual has a room, but don't show that the aggregation of all the moves follows normal finite rules, where if there exists a room for a guest, he can occupy it. You've given me no reason to accept your assumption.

As an additional thought, consider the set \omega + 1. It is both an infinite set, with cardinality \aleph _0 I believe, and it has a last element \omega, and in this set the successor of the last element does not exist. The same may be true for Hilbert's Hotel, if this interpretation of ordinals and cardinals is correct.

[matt grime]

By assumption, Hilberts hotel's room has order type w, there is no last room and we assume every guest may occupy a room; it's a thought experiment, not a real situation. Moreover, it appears you don't understand ordinals, for even if we relabelled the rooms to have order type w+1, then there is still an initial segment of order type w, and we don't need to make the person in room w+1 do anything, and we can still move people up one room in this initial segment where there is no last element.

Instead of thinking of set theory as explaining Hilbert's Hotel, try and understand the hotel as an explanation of the set theory, which is perhaps nearer the mark.

[master_coda]

Yours does the same. You show that each individual has a room, but don't show that the aggregation of all the moves follows normal finite rules, where if there exists a room for a guest, he can occupy it. You've given me no reason to accept your assumption.

Why would I care about showing that the aggregation of all moves follows finite rules?

Besides, proving that every guest can have a room and still leave room #1 empty contradicts the idea that the aggregation of all moves follows finite rules. So why would I even want to make that assumption?

[AKG]

Moreover, it appears you don't understand ordinals, for even if we relabelled the rooms to have order type w+1, then there is still an initial segment of order type w, and we don't need to make the person in room w+1 do anything, and we can still move people up one room in this initial segment where there is no last element.Sorry, my mistake.

[AKG]

Why would I care about showing that the aggregation of all moves follows finite rules?If you don't, you don't justify the assumption that just because for each guests, n, there exists a room n+1, that a guest can occupy that room.

[master_coda]

If you don't, you don't justify the assumption that just because for each guests, n, there exists a room n+1, that a guest can occupy that room.

No. I can prove that every guest can be put into a unique room, and still leave an empty room. I don't need to prove (or assume) anything about process of the guests moving to do that.

Your proof was based on proving something about every individual move, and using that plus an assumption to prove something about the aggregation of all moves.

My proof is only trying to prove something about individual people. I don't take any extra steps after that.


This isn't really going anywhere. The approach is entirely backwards. Taking a physical situation and trying to draw conclusions about math from it is a waste of time, since the argument always tends to break down into an argument about what mathematical theory is the most appropriate for modelling this particular situation. The actual math never gets discussed.

[AKG]

No. I can prove that every guest can be put into a unique room, and still leave an empty room. I don't need to prove (or assume) anything about process of the guests moving to do that.

Your proof was based on proving something about every individual move, and using that plus an assumption to prove something about the aggregation of all moves.

My proof is only trying to prove something about individual people. I don't take any extra steps after that.

This isn't really going anywhere. The approach is entirely backwards. Taking a physical situation and trying to draw conclusions about math from it is a waste of time, since the argument always tends to break down into an argument about what mathematical theory is the most appropriate for modelling this particular situation. The actual math never gets discussed.No, I accept the actual mathematical part that for each n there exists an n+1. That's trivial, that is how the naturals are defined, and inductive set where each member has a successor in the set. But when you make assumptions as to how the actual guests and rooms will behave, you run into problems because, well, you make faulty assumptions. But I agree, this won't go any further.

[master_coda]

No, I accept the actual mathematical part that for each n there exists an n+1. That's trivial, that is how the naturals are defined, and inductive set where each member has a successor in the set. But when you make assumptions as to how the actual guests and rooms will behave, you run into problems because, well, you make faulty assumptions. But I agree, this won't go any further.

Yes, that's the problem. You've made different assumptions, and so you're going to complain that my assumptions are wrong. We never get to discuss set theory because there's worrying about what the proper way to model this situation is. And worrying about the proper modelling of a physically absurd situation is clearly not a productive use of time.

[ChristopherL]

The main problem I have with this paradox is it makes no sense. If there is an infinite number of rooms, then an infinite number of guests should be no problem. At a hotel you don't move guests room to room as they check in, you put them in the next available room, so the whole concept behind this paradox is farfetched to me.

[LukeD]

Sweet zombie paradox!!!

You're right, there is no paradox here. It is essentially just that 1+countable infinity is still countable infinity (as far as sets are concerned at least).

Read some basic set theory if you want to understand where this comes from and why there is no problem here.

[SW VandeCarr]

I haven't read all the posts, but it seems that with aleph null infinity there is a one to one correspondance between guests and rooms if and only if you specify one guest to each room and there are no empty rooms. In this case the hotel is always full regardless of how guests move by definition. However you may also allow many to one guests to some or all rooms and also allow for empty rooms. It's still all aleph null infinity.

[CRGreathouse]

My argument says that no single guest creates a vacancy, so it doesn't make sense to say that the whole movement somehow does.

This corresponds almost precisely to the fact that none of {1}, {1, 2}, {1, 2, 3}, ... are infinite, but {1, 2, 3, ...} is infinite.

[D H]

This is a twice-necromanced thread, CR. You are arguing with posts AKG made five years ago. He has progressed a lot since then.