When mathematicians say "infinitely many" instead of

>>8021674
>there are infinitely many natural numbers
>there are infinity natural numbers
The second sounds retarded, like a school child.

>>8021674
>not even hiding the division by zero

>>8021674
Can you give an example or three?

Just because there's an infinite amount of objects, doesn't mean you can just throw out the properties of those objects.
infinitely many is better.

>>8021674
First off:
>Mathematician talking about math
>Sounding like a retard
You should reevaluate who sounds like a retard.

Second:
"Infinitely" and "infinity" are two different words expressing different parts of speech, and they have correspondingly different uses, and you're actually retarded if you don't know this.

>>8021674
It's sounds more awkward to say infinity over infinitely many

How many are there?
>There are infinity or There are infinity of them
versus
>There are infinitely many or There are infinitely many of them
It's purely phonetic preference

>>8021674
picture is so bait, I'm just closing my eyes

>>8021801
>0=0
>5-5=6-6
>5(1-1)=6(1-1)
>5*0=6*0
>"hurr durr"
>5=6

Who can possibly be baited by this except retards?

>>8022217
But isn't the fallacy already in step 2? You essentially multiplied the LHS by 5, and the RHS by 6.

>>8022217
All the trouble basically stemmed from the fact, that the original equation was "0=0". So with any equation, do we constantly need to account for the fact that both sides might be equal to 0 at any time and hogwash might result unexpectedly?

>>8022227
Low quality bait

>>8022306
But it's true.

0=0
5*0=6*0
5(1-1)=6(1-1)
5-5=6-6