MHB Actual infinity vs. potentially infinity - Math philosophy

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the distinction between actual infinity and potential infinity in mathematics, emphasizing that the debate is philosophical rather than rooted in physical limitations. Actual infinity refers to a completed set, while potential infinity describes a process that can continue indefinitely without reaching completion. Participants note that many mathematicians accept actual infinities, which contrasts with misconceptions that tie the concept to physical realities. The conversation also highlights that mathematical discussions should focus on abstract structures rather than physical representations. Understanding these differences is crucial for grasping foundational mathematical concepts.
highmath
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
what the differences between actual infinity to potentially infinity?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Have you searched for this? I get a wiki-article, some articles (scholarly and otherwise) and a few videos that claim to provide explanations.
(For example, to my relief, I just learned from this that I apparently side with the majority of mathematicians that "accept actual infinities".)

If you have a more specific question, I am quite sure there are more capable people here to answer it.

Note: I think one of the confusions that often appears in such discussions, is that people oppose the actually infinite on the grounds of limitations imposed by physical reality. This is not correct: Rather, the discussion does not depend on physical, but philosophical and foundational constraints.
 
Janssens said:
Have you searched for this? I get a wiki-article, some articles (scholarly and otherwise) and a few videos that claim to provide explanations.
(For example, to my relief, I just learned from this that I apparently side with the majority of mathematicians that "accept actual infinities".)

If you have a more specific question, I am quite sure there are more capable people here to answer it.

Note: I think one of the confusions that often appears in such discussions, is that people oppose the actually infinite on the grounds of limitations imposed by physical reality. This is not correct: Rather, the discussion does not depend on physical, but philosophical and foundational constraints.
I don't understand the bold and underline texts.
Can you explain it?
 
highmath said:
I don't understand the bold and underline texts.
Can you explain it?

Physical quantities such as mass and velocity have a finite magnitude. (In the case of velocity, there is even a particular upper bound.) However, this is not relevant in the context of "actual vs. potential infinity", because in that context we are concerned with sets as abstract mathematical structures, not as representations of the values of physical quantities.
 
I find a quote from Dedekind somewhat apropos: "If space has at all a real existence it is not necessary for it to be continuous; ... And if we knew for certain that space was discontinuous there would be nothing to prevent us, in case we so desired, from filling up its gaps, in thought, and thus making it continuous;"

Dedekind, "Continuity and Irrational Numbers" in "Essays On the Theory of Numbers"; translation by Wooster Woodruff Beman.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top