1^∞, 0^0 and others on the real projective line

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter n_kelthuzad
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical concepts of infinity and undefined operations within the context of the real projective line. The user Victor Lu proposes that expressions like 1^∞, 0^0, and ∞^0 can be defined as a collection of numbers, referred to as A, which includes all real numbers under certain conditions. The conversation highlights the challenges of performing arithmetic with infinity, emphasizing that defining operations involving infinity can lead to contradictions and the breakdown of standard arithmetic properties. Participants stress the importance of understanding limits and the implications of treating infinity as a number.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limits in calculus
  • Familiarity with the concept of the real projective line
  • Basic knowledge of exponentiation rules
  • Awareness of arithmetic operations involving infinity
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of the real projective line and its arithmetic operations
  • Study the concept of limits and limit points in calculus
  • Explore the implications of defining operations involving infinity in mathematical frameworks
  • Examine the differences between single-valued and multi-valued functions in mathematics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of calculus, and anyone interested in advanced mathematical concepts involving infinity and the real projective line.

  • #31
Hurkyl is exactly right.

I said earlier that these things are not defined, because when you define them you get contractions.

Wouldn't you agree that 0≠0 is a contradiction?

This is why we leave these things undefined.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Diffy said:
Hurkyl is exactly right.

I said earlier that these things are not defined, because when you define them you get contractions.
The reason they aren't defined is because it's not useful to define them.

It's not useful to define them, because if you did, it wouldn't have many useful properties.

You only get a contradiction if you both define them and assume that the definition has useful properties.
 
  • #33
Hurkyl said:
The reason they aren't defined is because it's not useful to define them.

It's not useful to define them, because if you did, it wouldn't have many useful properties.

You only get a contradiction if you both define them and assume that the definition has useful properties.
While I agree in principle, I've sometimes found it useful to define 0^0 as 1.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
MTannock said:
While I agree in principle, I've sometimes found it useful to define 0^0 as 1.
Hurkyl was referring to ∞/∞ and 0/0.

A lot of calculators agree with you on 0^0, and produce 1 as a result. This doesn't have anything to do with the real projective line or the extended real number line, though.
 
  • #35
Actually, 0^0 is relevant here. It's also a wonderful illustration of some of the relevant problems.

On the one hand, is not useful to give a value to 0^[/color]0. On the other hand, 0^[/color]0 is not only equal to 1, but it's not even a special case.

What changed from one side to the other is that ^[/color] refers to the continuous exponentiation operator or its continuous extensions to things like the extended and projective real lines. ^[/color], however, is being used to some sort of algebraic exponentiation operator; examples have domains including things like the base from any ring and exponent from the natural numbers. The exponentiation operation appearing in a power series is ^[/color].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
904
Replies
8
Views
2K