Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Interesting Infinite Powers Paradox

  1. Jul 15, 2013 #1
    Recently, an AT&T commercial has been running on TV where a moderator asks some children about the largest number they could think of.



    At the end, one kid replies “∞ times ∞”, which of course is simply ∞2.

    Natually, one can instantly think of a larger number: ∞. But then, that got me to thinking about ∞.

    Now, by non-standard, but logical, mathematical rules of conventions regarding reciprocal and powers notation, it can be argued that:

    ∞ = 1/0 = 0-1

    and

    -∞ = -1/0 = -0-1

    This naturally leads to the formula:

    = 0(0-1)

    However, due to those rules governing mixtures of powers, I quickly realized that:

    ≠ 0(0-1)

    Because

    0(0-1) = 0 = 0 ! (& no, I’m not intending that to represent a factorial) :tongue:

    Therefore, to properly notate the equation, it must go like this:

    = 0-(0-1) = 0-∞ !! (& no, I’m not intending that to represent a double-factorial) :tongue2:

    Which results in the surprising conclusion:

    ∞ = -∞ :bugeye:

    Furthermore:

    1/0 = -1/0

    And

    1 = -1:surprised

    (Of course, there is an error in the above—the negative in the exponent of 0 is the act of making the reciprocal of 0, NOT ∞.

    It’s essentially the same error that folks often make when proving 1=0. Besides, even if there was no math error in my original calculation, there’s still an error in logic, as the entire exercise is merely a matter of mathematical notation, which is not the same as actual numbers.

    But, ironically, it is quite interesting that the graphing of nearly any function that involves the value of ∞, there is a corresponding value to those functions that implies that ∞ does indeed equal -∞.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2013 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Interesting.

    First, we would like to define what ##\infty## actually is. Contrary to what most laymen believe, there is no unique form of infinity.

    You use the relation ##\infty = \frac{1}{0}##. This relation is actually false for most definitions of ##\infty## that you use. Except for the projective real line.

    In the projective real line, you add one symbol ##\infty## to ##\mathbb{R}##. And this symbol is both larger than each real number and smaller (in fact, the usual ordering relation breaks down). In this case, we can indeed define division by ##0## by ##\infty##. And interestingly enough, ##\infty = -\infty## holds in the projective real line.

    So, what you described, is no more and no less that the projective real line.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_line
     
  4. Jul 15, 2013 #3

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    And by the way, in the projective real line, it doesn't hold that ##\frac{\infty}{\infty} = 1##. So you can't go from ##\infty = - \infty## to ##1=-1##. So there is no contradiction.
     
  5. Jul 15, 2013 #4
    Thanks, Micromass.

    I've known about the concept for a long time, but I've never known its formal name.

    Although I see that the first 3 lines of the Arithmatic Operations defined conflict with the first 2 lines of those undefined, if one sets a = ∞
     
  6. Jul 15, 2013 #5

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    It doesn't conflict, since it says that ##a\in \mathbb{R}##. And ##\infty## is not an element of ##\mathbb{R}##.
     
  7. Jul 15, 2013 #6
    Oh, okay. I'm not as up on some of the current heiroglyphics used nowadays.

    a is a subset of the Regular Reals, but ∞ is beyond in the Regular. (Sorry, but it also seems I'm not having much fun with the Latex Reference symbols--I have to use IE at my office)
     
  8. Jul 15, 2013 #7

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Not "subset", but "element". That is: ##a## is an element of the real numbers, but ##\infty## is not a real number.
     
  9. Jul 15, 2013 #8

    FOIWATER

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    a^2-a^2 = a^2-a^2

    a(a-a) = (a+a)(a-a)

    a(a-a) divided by a-a = (a+a)(a-a) divided by a-a

    a=2a

    1=2

    .... but I divided by zero
     
  10. Jul 15, 2013 #9

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    ∞ = -∞ is a very natural result if you extend real numbers, as micromass mentioned. It gets even better with complex numbers.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Interesting Infinite Powers Paradox
  1. A paradox? (Replies: 11)

  2. Interesting limit (Replies: 0)

  3. An integral paradox ? (Replies: 3)

  4. An Interesting Limit. (Replies: 3)

  5. Interesting integral (Replies: 1)

Loading...