I refer you to a proposal about the finiteness of the integers: http://paulandellen.com/essays/essay089.htm(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

How could this be? Everyone has assumed that the integers are infinite, yet a proof can be give to illustrate otherwise. Firstly we will use the characters necessary for expression of the integers in various ways: we will use the 26 letters of the alphabet along with the 10 numerals and will also throw in commas, spaces, !,^,etc, to get a collection of 50 or less characters.

Ramanujan of whom it was said, "Every positive integer was his personal friend," was asked how he arrived at a hospital, and he answered that he came by cab #65. He was told that 65 was a "very ordinary number," but Ramanujan, said that this was not true:

"65 is the smallest number that can be express as the sum of two squares in two different ways."

That, of course, illustrates that 65 has more than one name, just as 2 could be referred to as, "The smallest even integer, " or "The largest integer less than three."

Now, it has been assumed that the integers are infinite, but we will show there is an upper limit to counting, which indicates that the counting process slows down and finally reaches an upper limit, similar to that for velocity as shown by Dr. Einstein. (This is actually not all that surprising, since Relativity prevades the physical world, there is no reason not to suppose it would also effect counting, which is extrapolated from physical objects.)

Theorem: Every integer is expressible is less than 50^37 characters. Proof, by contradiction: If there is a integer that can not so be expressed, then there is a least such integer, that number is:

"The least integer not expressible in 50^53 characters."

But the number is so expressed!Thus the matter is proven and the only way to reconcile this with our process of counting is to realize that as we near 50^53, the counting processes continually slow down and eventually even stop. But this is not realizable to the counter, who is mislead by a process now classified as "number dilation." This process has frequently been confused with the fact that as the digits grow, the number takes more and more time, in general, to utter; but "number dilation" is now realized to be an entirely distinct phenomena.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Relativity and the Counting Process

Loading...

Similar Threads - Relativity Counting Process | Date |
---|---|

I Integration by parts | Dec 12, 2017 |

Deriving functions relating to condition numbers | Mar 23, 2017 |

I Lim f(x)/g(x) as x->∞ and relative growth rate of functions | Sep 18, 2016 |

I Relating integral expressions for Euler's constant | Aug 28, 2016 |

Zeta function the the orime counting function | Feb 13, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**