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.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top