Graduate Counting on a computing system

Click For Summary
A classical computer cannot count the natural numbers due to limitations like memory space and the nature of infinite loops. Analog devices also face challenges, as distinguishing large values requires sensitivity that conflicts with the Uncertainty Principle. The concept of a machine counting to infinity minus one raises questions about the feasibility and definition of counting itself. The discussion highlights the philosophical implications of counting and the paradoxes surrounding infinity. Ultimately, counting all natural numbers remains a mathematical concept rather than a physical reality.
thidmir
Messages
5
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
I'm looking for any references on a device that is capable of counting over the set of natural numbers
It is plretty clear that a classical computer can't count over the set of natural numbers. If it is a digital device and you used an infinite loop you would eventually run out of memory space and have to reinterpret the meaning of the numbers (so it isn't really counting independently). An analog device can't either because even if you had an analog function like 1/n, you would need a sensitive enough detector to distinguish large enough values of n which goes against the Uncertainty principle. I've heard of some people trying to develop a machine that can count up to (though not including) infinity but does anyone know of any specific references?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
Physics news on Phys.org
You cannot physically count all the natural numbers. You can only do it mathematically.
 
thidmir said:
I've heard of some people trying to develop a machine that can count up to (though not including) infinity
It would count up to ##\infty - 1##? How is that even possible? What is the value of ##\infty - 1##?

A machine that would count to ##\infty - 1## would never stop until the end of time. And, at that time, couldn't we say that if it was built just 1 second earlier, or could have counted a little bit faster, that it could have counted at least one extra number?
 
thidmir said:
I've heard of some people trying to develop a machine that can count up to (though not including) infinity
I have not, so I'd be grateful for any links ...

Your theme is quite interesting, though. But it makes me wonder: what exactly is counting? After a while just pronouncing the numbers would take endlessly long, so would it go towards an infinity squared business?
And how much is infinity minus half of that? So how long to count that?

## \ ##
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
thidmir said:
I've heard of some people trying to develop a machine that can count up to (though not including) infinity but does anyone know of any specific references?
If you've "heard of" it then you should be able to give at least one specific reference. If you can't, and apparently you can't, then we don't have a valid basis for discussion.

Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes BvU
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
5K