- #1
Skhandelwal
- 400
- 3
Does infinity have direction? Dimensions? As we all know it does, then doesn't it mean that infinity is actually limited? Just like values b/w 1 and 2 x values are infinity but have a total sum.
There was a recent thread conceptually similar to this. Someone was having trouble with the concept of the set of integers being infinite.Skhandelwal said:Does infinity have direction? Dimensions? As we all know it does, then doesn't it mean that infinity is actually limited? Just like values b/w 1 and 2 x values are infinity but have a total sum.
Robokapp said:Now...there are infinitely many in both cases but I'd say since every number in the interval (0, 1) exists in the interval (0, 2) and not all numbers from interval (0, 2) exist in the interval (0, 1), the (0, 2) is greater than (0, 1). But you're comparing two infinities so...
One infinity greater than another infinity would make the samll infinity not really be an infinity...because an infinity is largest amount possible...and you've just demoonstrated an amount greater than it is existent...
What a fascinating topic this has turned into. But I think your logic is flawed.CRGreathouse said:Amusingly, you're wrong on both counts. There are the same number of numbers in (0, 1) as in (0, 2), since for every x in (0, 2) there is x/2 in (0, 1). But there can be infinite quantities which are smaller than other infinite quantities. There are an infinite number of rational numbers, but not as many as there are real numbers in (0, 1).
WhyIsItSo said:What a fascinating topic this has turned into. But I think your logic is flawed.
In (0,1), that x/2 value you specify is already represented by some value y. By your logic, that value is counted twice!
First I should clarify I am not disputing the infinity issue itself, only your example here.CRGreathouse said:No, it's not counted twice. Let's use a concrete example: 4/3.
4/3 in (0, 2) maps to 2/3 in (0, 1). That's not counting 2/3 twice, though, because I'm not counting 2/3 in (0, 2) as 2/3 in (0, 1); I'm counting it as 1/3 in (0, 1).
WhyIsItSo said:It seems to me meaningless to talk about "bigger" or "smaller" infinities. Inifinity is infinity. [tex]2*\infty = \infty[/tex]. What else can be said about it?
Tchakra said:Think of infinity as a curve near an asymptote on a graph.
Lets visualize two increasing functions f annd g both starting at 0 and both are asymptotic at a. Say by construction that f(x)>g(x) for all values of x in [0,x]. Then it is evident that as x approaches a both approach infinity and f is ALWAYS bigger than g. Hence the infinity f is tending to is bigger than the infinity g is tending to.
WhyIsItSo said:First I should clarify I am not disputing the infinity issue itself, only your example here.
Your original argument that x/2 yields a new number is what I'm arguing against.
Let's take a simple, concrete example. I'm counting... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
You say 8/2 gives another number. I'm saying no it doesn't, it is nothing more than a different way of representing a number we already have... 4.
WhyIsItSo said:The same applies to the OP subject. For any number "x" you pick in (0,2), then divide by two, I argue there already exists that number, and x/2 is nothing more than a different expression fo the same number.
WhyIsItSo said:It seems to me meaningless to talk about "bigger" or "smaller" infinities. Inifinity is infinity. [tex]2*\infty = \infty[/tex]. What else can be said about it?
WhyIsItSo said:I would offer that you are mixing magnitude of the range with the number of values within that range. That doesn't work.
i think you missed my constraint "asymptotic at a", which self implies that a is not [tex] \infty[/tex]CRGreathouse said:Careful there. x^2+1 > x for all x in [tex][0, \infty)[/tex], but that doesn't mean it's tending toward a 'bigger' infinity (well, maybe as a hyperreal). In fact, it's a little hard to think of a way in which this is even well-defined.
I stand corrected. What I was not able to discover was the point. As the wiki I read states, this is counterintuitive.matt grime said:Cantor. Cardinals. Look 'em up.
I didnt know that anyone looked for practicality in mathematics at the level of asking about infinity, or that it conforms to intiuition.WhyIsItSo said:I stand corrected. What I was not able to discover was the point. As the wiki I read states, this is counterintuitive.
That the cardinality differs is obvious. That there is any meaning to "size" of infinity appears to be unproductive.
Can you give an example of a practical use?
Tchakra said:i think you missed my constraint "asymptotic at a", which self implies that a is not [tex] \infty[/tex]
WhyIsItSo said:Can you give an example of a practical use?
Thank you kindly.CRGreathouse said:It's quite important in topology, which in turn has various applications.
I can't get to construct two good functions now, butCRGreathouse said:First, I'm not sure what you mean by "asymptotic at a". If you mean "bounded above by a" that still doesn't help much -- f(x)=6 and g(x)=6-1/x are both bounded above by 6 with f(x) > g(x), but neither tends toward a higher infinity.
Wold you give an example of two such functions that are "asymptotic at a", one of which tends toward a 'higher' infinity? Maybe then I'll understand what you mean.
Does "atan" mean arctangent? I was puzzled since you then mention "a, b, c". If "atan" does not mean a*tangent, then there is no a in your formula. In any case, I would not say that one function "tends to a higher infinity" than the other. I would say "one function tends to infinity faster than the other". But the "infinity" here has nothing to do with different cardinalities. The problem is that the word "infinity" has a number of different meanings in different form of mathematics.Tchakra said:I can't get to construct two good functions now, but
take, f(x)= -1/x - 2 and construct g(x)= atan(bx) + c where a, b and c such that g(-1/2)=0 and blows up at g(0).
Strictly in (-1/2,0), f(-1/2) = g(-1/2) and as x -> 0 f,g -> infinity
I don't know if in this case f>g, but as x -> 0 either f or g will overtake the other one hence at a given oint one will be ALWAYS bigger than the other one thus tending at a higher infinity.
i hope this clears my asymptotic way of explaining the different sizes of infinities.
Tchakra said:I can't get to construct two good functions now, but
take, f(x)= -1/x - 2 and construct g(x)= atan(bx) + c where a, b and c such that g(-1/2)=0 and blows up at g(0).
Strictly in (-1/2,0), f(-1/2) = g(-1/2) and as x -> 0 f,g -> infinity
I don't know if in this case f>g, but as x -> 0 either f or g will overtake the other one hence at a given oint one will be ALWAYS bigger than the other one thus tending at a higher infinity.
i hope this clears my asymptotic way of explaining the different sizes of infinities.
I hate to risk confusing the issue, but that's not quite accurate. In standard analysis, we often use the Extended real numbers, which is formed by adding two "endpoints" (named [itex]+\infty[/itex] and [itex]-\infty[/itex]) to the real line. This space is homeomorphic to a closed interval (just as the reals are homeomorphic to an open interval).When you write "f(x) --> infinity" it means that beyond some point f(x) is greater than any fixed value -- there's no 'number' it's headed toward in standard analysis.
WhyIsItSo said:Can you give an example of a practical use?
Hurkyl said:I hate to risk confusing the issue, but that's not quite accurate.
WhyIsItSo said:Can you give an example of a practical use?
HallsofIvy said:I would say "one function tends to infinity faster than the other". But the "infinity" here has nothing to do with different cardinalities. The problem is that the word "infinity" has a number of different meanings in different form of mathematics.
Skhandelwal said:I didn't know that there are types of infinites in mathematics. Would you mind telling what they are? Btw, I was wondering, Is it possible for there to be hypotenuse infinitely long of two infinitely long rays? Like on the cartesian coordinate x-y. x and y are the rays starting from 0 to positive infinity.
Skhandelwal said:I didn't know that there are types of infinites in mathematics. Would you mind telling what they are? Btw, I was wondering, Is it possible for there to be hypotenuse infinitely long of two infinitely long rays? Like on the cartesian coordinate x-y. x and y are the rays starting from 0 to positive infinity.
buddyholly9999 said:To answer the original question without all the hoo-hah...I believe that it was put to me as simply "infinity is a way to describe the behavior of certain sequence of numbers". Thus it should not be thought of as a number such as 1 or 2. I hope this is sufficient for generally grasping the concept without bringing into light extended real number lines.