infinity?

[MandrakeRoot]

That is a cool exemple. Is it possible to show it with some measurements that it would never discharge completely ?

 

Mandrake

[YT2095]

that also applies to charging too

 

[edit] as an after though, the part that will "cabbage" him, will be that a capacitor is of finite Mass too

[MandrakeRoot]

No in fact he even said that time was finite too !

Thats pretty silly...

 

Just thinking, how do we mesure time without making reference to numbers ?

Hourglass to mesure discharge rate ?

But how would we express it without numbers again too ?

It would be great to have an exemple which could be verified without anything to count/ reference to a number system, that would be the ideal "practical/real exemple" i would say.

 

Mandrake

[YT2095]

because by deffinition is requires equaly spaced increments to measure it, what ever IT may be or however the spacing of the increments, are arbitrary. the only requirement is that they be equal.

that then presents a problem! HOW do we exchange information with each other in meaningfull terms without a common frame of reference?

 

well the fact is we can`t! and so... the logical thing to do would be to assign these increments individual terms (numbers or letters or glyphs or sounds etc...)

 

 

I could say (using your idea) taheen soonoo, sarni klahn. and be perfectly correct!

the only problem is that you haven`t a clue what I just said, why? because you`ve no frame of reference to it. so Maths and Numbers NEED to be used.

 

and by the way, a capacitor will charge and discharge at the same rate whether we have words for it or not

 

it`s just alot easier to use them

[pulkit]

A little bit that i'd like to add to YT's post as a footnote is that the concept of infinity we know and use is based on comparisons and comparibility. In essence you can define infinity for any set that has total order under a particular relation. Eg Real numbers under the total order > (+infinity) or <(-infinity).

 

You could go on and define infinity using any other set and a total order relation defined over it.

[123rock]

The concept of math is not man-made, but it is a man made understanding of it.

 

Science is the visual world of math, where x=x. But math is not science, as science is its application.

[123rock]

Infinity is "defined" as x/0, and it is what you multiply to get the next dimension. E.g. multiply a dot by 5/0 (in meters) and you get a line 5 meters long. If infinity didn't exist, then our whole existence is fundamentally flawed :0, (which something that may not be untrue)

[matt grime]

Infinity is "defined" as x/0, and it is what you multiply to get the next dimension. E.g. multiply a dot by 5/0 (in meters) and you get a line 5 meters long. If infinity didn't exist, then our whole existence is fundamentally flawed :0, (which something that may not be untrue)

 

 

utter nonsense.

[Dave]

Infinity is "defined" as x/0, and it is what you multiply to get the next dimension. E.g. multiply a dot by 5/0 (in meters) and you get a line 5 meters long. If infinity didn't exist, then our whole existence is fundamentally flawed :0, (which something that may not be untrue)

 

I'd like to back up what matt grime said about this.

 

In general, I believe you can only define the term "infinity" in a particular context. For example, take a sequence [math](a_n) \to \infty[/math]. This is defined in a very rigorous context - however, the same definition does not necessarily apply to other situations.

[pulkit]

If infinity didn't exist, then our whole existence is fundamentally flawed :0, (which something that may not be untrue)

 

Our exsistance is fundamentally flawed ?? :-S

How on Earth do you reach that conclusion ?

[Guest DrBelfrey]

to quote 123rock, "The concept of math is not man-made, but it is a man made understanding of it."

 

What? Are You Mad?! Everything not in the natural world is man made... sure, there may be mathematical comceptas which exist in nature, but Math is completely 100% a Human Idea.

 

None of you even get what I'm talking about in my original post. poo...

[matt grime]

None of you even get what I'm talking about in my original post. poo...

 

your orginal post contains a vague philosophical question, and this is a mathematics forum. it might be better to explain what you mean by "exist", as there are platonists and intuitionists and wittgenstinian people to mention but a few who all interpret that question differently.

 

In fact your original statement was:

 

"I would just like to state that the concept of Infinity does not actually exist"

 

which is either badly written or just plain wrong since the *concept* certainly does exist, whether or not you think that *concept* encapsulates something tangible is different, and might show you either to be a platonist or a formalist. However, being either, or neither, of those two does not affect how you actually do mathematics. Although seeing as the concept of infinity doesn't exist to you, you must find it very hard to do any analysis, geometry, topology...

[pulkit]

None of you even get what I'm talking about in my original post. poo...

 

Of all that you have posted so far, I only agree with the fact that maths is man made.

 

Once you make that statement, the rest of your statements automatically become invalid. You can no longer challenge infinity, now you are in the domain of maths, and must present a mathematical proof to support each and every one of your claims.

[123rock]

Math isn't man-made, but Godmade.

Utter nonsense?

Infinite sequences are infinite numberse but not the value of infinity represented by x/0

Sum of infinite geometric series (a1/1-r) is one approach to infinity as is 1=0.99....

1/9=0.111.....; 1/9*9=0.111...*9;9/9-0.999....;1=0.999...showing 1/infinity is 0

if infinity is x/0, then 1/x/0=1/1*0/x=0. Nothing wrong with that.

[MandrakeRoot]

Yeah i know we need numbers to have a common framework, in order to talk of stuff.

I was just wondering if a primitive culture could find out also by experimentation that something could take forever, without any number reference. Too bad

 

In set theory it is possible to add to any partially ordered set, a biggest element, this element can be called infinity if you like. It is exactly these properties that "infinity" has for the "extended real line", it is the biggest element in this set under the well-ordering <=.

 

Dividing by zero is utter nonsense 123rock, it is impossible to define such operations rigorously without contradicting yourself.

 

Mandrake

[matt grime]

Math isn't man-made' date=' but Godmade.

Utter nonsense?

Infinite sequences are infinite numberse but not the value of infinity represented by x/0

Sum of infinite geometric series (a1/1-r) is one approach to infinity as is 1=0.99....

1/9=0.111.....; 1/9*9=0.111...*9;9/9-0.999....;1=0.999...showing 1/infinity is 0

if infinity is x/0, then 1/x/0=1/1*0/x=0. Nothing wrong with that.[/quote']

 

 

there are no such things as infinite numbers, x/0 doesn't represent any value of infinity since infinity isn't a value, by which i mean it is not a real number.

 

the rest of it presumes that division etc are operations defined on all of R.

 

look up the definitions of a field and see that that ain't so.

 

those do you? you aren't talking mathematically, what you've written makes no mathematical sense, hence me calling it nonsense.

 

and pulkit can you correct the quote you attribute to me but that i didn't make.

[Thales]

Maths isn't man made. The specific symbols and the direction we take it are, but maths itself is a function of the universe. If aliens wanted to communicate with us, they would most likely use the universes most fundamental language, mathematics.

 

That said there I believe that only time is truely infinite. Space is not.

[pulkit]

Maths isn't man made. The specific symbols and the direction we take it are, but maths itself is a function of the universe. If aliens wanted to communicate with us, they would most likely use the universes most fundamental language, mathematics.

 

That said there I believe that only time is truely infinite. Space is not.

 

Maths is man made.

you only look to nature and try to find an equivalent form.

 

Simple question : "What is two ?"

 

Try and answer that without using abstractions you define in your mind. The best definition of two I have seen originates from axiomatic set theory which is completely abstract, and a man made concept. You can at best tend to asociate certain phenomena within a mathematical framework. But when you need a better framework, you just go ahead and define a new kind of mathematics Eg. Differential / Integral calculus developed to help in mechanics ........

[MolecularMan14]

Well math is a fundamental in the universe...it isnt actually man made, its just man-altered...we shaped our perception of mathmatics...as if we asked someone not of our planet what 2 objects were, he would know the number of 2, of course we wouldnt expect him to speak english, but he would still understand the idea of math

[pulkit]

Well math is a fundamental in the universe...it isnt actually man made, its just man-altered...we shaped our perception of mathmatics...as if we asked someone not of our planet what 2 objects were, he would know the number of 2, of course we wouldnt expect him to speak english, but he would still understand the idea of math

 

Maths is not inherent in nature.

 

Eg. You say 2 + 2 = 4

Why ?

2 objects and 2 more objects ==> 4 objects ??

 

What if I considered rain drops.

2 drops and 2 more drops could very well be 1 single drop, you don't say 2 + 2 =1.

 

Numbers are merely abstractions. I could go on and and on but this is a maths forum and not a philosophy one so I think its best not to discuss this topic here......

[Dapthar]

What if I considered rain drops.

2 drops and 2 more drops could very well be 1 single drop' date=' you don't say 2 + 2 =1.[/quote']<nitpick mode> It is implicitly assumed that when one is adding two numbers, and getting a non-trivial result, the quantities that the numbers refer to represent the same object. Thus, [math]2+2[/math] always [math]= 4[/math].

 

In your example, you would have to write [math]2[/math] small drops + [math]2[/math] small drops [math]= 1[/math] large drop, otherwise your equation is false. </nitpick mode>

[123rock]

2+2=4 because x=x; prove x=x and i'll admit you as a reasonable man/woman, unless it's proven unreasonably.

 

As you can notice, you so called Mat Grime, x/0 is not a constant value, as it is R, and all imaginary numbers, because if 0/0=x, then y, where y doesn't =x, would be y*0/0, meaning y*x=x, and x=any number greater than equal to or less than x, which is certainly a contradiction for the givens.

[123rock]

You're an idiot, I put a variable specifically for the function of saying that it could be any number, Read some general math for chrissakes.

[123rock]

2drops+2drops=4drops of the same size, assuming the original 4 are the same size. You're a big dumbass.

[MandrakeRoot]

Dividing by zero is undefined and cant be defined, since such an operation or notation would not have the normal sense. 1/x is a short hand notation for [math]x^{-1}[/math], the unique element in [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] s.t. [math]x^{-1}x = xx^{-1} = 1[/math]. If you want to give a sense to 1/0, in no way it would be the inverse of zero thus making this notation totally superfluous. The same holds for your argument 123rock, since like i just said, no way 1/0 will be the inverse of 0, so your argument with x and 0/0 is nonsense.

 

Another exemple : Often people write [math]i = \sqrt{-1}[/math], where i is the complex number. This notation also has no sense. I will let you guys try to find the error in the following reasoning and see for yourself why it is meaningless to write [math]i = \sqrt{-1}[/math]

:

[math]-1 = i^2 = (\sqrt{-1})^2 = \sqrt{-1}\sqrt{-1} = \sqrt{-1 -1}= \sqrt{1}=1[/math]

 

Mandrake