Countable versus uncountable infinities in math and physics

AI Thread Summary
In mathematics and physics, the transition from countable to uncountable infinities occurs when taking limits, such as in Riemann sums, continuous mass densities, and path integrals. These limits yield continuous variables despite starting with discrete, countable elements, allowing for the treatment of countable infinities as uncountable in certain contexts. The key lies in the continuous nature of the segments involved, where each term in a sum corresponds to an uncountable set of points. This connection is essential for justifying the approximation of sums with integrals, as every integral includes a differential element "dx." Ultimately, the relationship between countable and uncountable infinities is crucial for understanding integrals in mathematical analysis and physics.
aikiddo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
In math and physics, one often takes the limit of an expression involving an integer N as N → ∞, and ends up with the expression of a continuous variable x. Some examples of this are:

- An integral as the limit of a Riemann sum of N terms
- A string with continuous mass density as the limit of a string with N discrete masses
- A path integral as the limit of an integral over N independent variables

The limits in each of these cases give countable infinities -- an infinite number of discrete beads on a string is countable -- but we seem to treat them as uncountable, such as when taking an integral over the real line.

Clearly treating the limits this way gives the correct answer, but what allows us to treat a countable infinity as an uncountable one in these cases, or is there a gap in my reasoning somewhere?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I believe the answer is the same for all your examples. I'll describe it for Riemann sum. Each term in the sum is the area of a rectangle. The base of the rectangle is a line segment with an uncountable number of points. So each term in the sum involves an uncountable number of points - therefore it is not surprising that going to the limit gives an integral over a real interval, with an uncountable number of points.
 
Alright, I agree, but I don't see how that applies to the other examples. Point masses on a string are discrete; you can think of the mass density before taking the limit as the sum of delta functions, and then taking the limit replaces the sum with an integral.

The same sort of thing happens when one goes from a set of countably infinitely many degrees of freedom to a continuous field in statistical mechanics. In neither case is the sum Riemannian, yet we are justified in approximating it with an integral.
 
aikiddo said:
Alright, I agree, but I don't see how that applies to the other examples. Point masses on a string are discrete; you can think of the mass density before taking the limit as the sum of delta functions, and then taking the limit replaces the sum with an integral.

What happens here is that even though the point masses are discrete, the sections of the string they are attached to are continuous. That's what becomes "dx" in the integral.

Generally, every integral must contain "dx" in some form. And the finite sum it is the limit of must have a corresponding "Δx". Without that, you don't have an integral. And this is what connects countable N with the continuum.
 
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