Can we ban it already? Infinities do not exist in nature and

Infinity does not apply to our real universe so it can't apply in everyday applications but we need it in order to prove mathematical theorems. Ya feel?

>>8427639
Not op but yes that exactly right!

>>8427639
this

>>8427639
>needing something that doesn't exist to prove your theorems
>literally making up your own solutions

This is just like that imaginary number nonsense.
Math is such a joke field.

>>8427946
Cry more faggot

>>8427948
>no argument

Mathfags, everyone.

>>8427626

What finite amount of time will you ban it for?

>>8427974
[math]10^{10^{200}}[/math] years

>>8427626

Fuck off with this Moron Zeilberger shit.

>>8427626
>nature
>theorem
one of these things is not like the other

>>8428068
ok ill just wait [math]10^{10^{200}}+1[/math] years.

>>8427626
Well, infinity is a disaster. It's a humanitarian nightmare. But it has fallen from any standpoint. I mean, what do you need, a signed document? Take a look at infinity. It is so sad when you see what's happened. And a lot of this is because of set theorists.

The rearrangement is pretty intuitive if you actually read the proof.

>>8428522

>1010200+11010200+1010200+11010200 years

>>8427626
>Riemann rearrangement theorem
How's freshman year goin?

>>8427626
>Can we ban it already?
no, never
>Infinities do not exist in nature
prove it?
>leads to completely preposterous results
preposterous to you

File: The_Pick_120112.jpg (140KB, 555x409px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 555x409px

>>8428701
>prove it?

Look at this bitch boi

File: zeno-paradox-arrow.png (104KB, 1869x503px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1869x503px

>>8427626
If infinity doesn't exist, then how does one solve Zeno's paradox of dichotomy? E.g. from point A and B someone had to travel halfway, then quarterway, then 1/8th of the way, then 1/16th of the way and so on. How can anything ever get anywhere ???

The paradox is only solvable through limit and infinite series summation, which hinges on the concept of infinity

>>8428712
Because both distance and time are subjective illusions

>>8427626
If you outlaw infinity, only outlaws will use infinity.

>>8428712
>>8427626 (OP)
>If infinity doesn't exist, then how does one solve Zeno's paradox of dichotomy? E.g. from point A and B someone had to travel halfway, then quarterway, then 1/8th of the way, then 1/16th of the way and so on. How can anything ever get anywhere ???

Because it already happens every fucking day, you dipshit.

If your mathematical framework is incapable of modeling one object overtaking anouther, then I feel REAL bad for you.

>>8428712
>The paradox is only solvable through limit and infinite series summation, which hinges on the concept of infinity
nope. what if time is discrete?

>>8428712
Zeno is retarted.

His paradoxes? Doubly so.

>>8428726
>If your mathematical framework is incapable of modeling one object overtaking anouther, then I feel REAL bad for you.

Then name one thing wrong with the basic premise of Zeno's dichotomy paradox, that

1. To travel from A to B one will pass C in which halfway between A and B
2. To travel from C to B one will pass D which is halfway between C and B
3. To travel from D to B one will pass E which is halfway between E to B

Philosophers for more than 1500 years were bogged down in thinking that there is something wrong with the framework above. They waddle in the mud and got nothing to show for it, until Newton came up with Calculus and the way to add infinite series. There's literally nothing wrong with the framework, what the Greek philosopher missed are the way to extend their framework to infinity and solve the infinite series summation

I think the problem here is that pure mathematicians have taken over the physics depatrment.

>>8428727
You're confusing with his OTHER paradox, with Achilles and the Rabbit.

The arrow/dichotomy paradox doesn't rely on time being discrete. It is dependent on space only. You CAN say that space is discrete, but that is pretty much not true.

>>8428727
>what if time is discrete?
what if tacos are actually sandwiches

>>8428731
>1. To travel from A to B one will pass C in which halfway between A and B
>2. To travel from C to B one will pass D which is halfway between C and B
>3. To travel from D to B one will pass E which is halfway between E to B

Because eventually your dumb as shit mathematics will rech a singularity when achilies overtakes the dumb fucking tortise.

And then all your math will be meaningless.

Literally.

>>8427946
>he thinks imaginary numbers are a difficult concept or even weird compared to many other things, including or less weird than things like real numbers
How is HS doing for you?

File: Untitled.png (147KB, 1717x709px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1717x709px

>>8428736
>muh singularity meme

You don't even know what it means kiddo, and you're confusing Zeno's paradox of space & time (Achilles and the tortoise) with dichotomy paradox, in which hinges on space only

>>8428726
Your framework is incapable of modeling any continuous interval, and thus incapable of determining the exact moment at which X overtakes Y. If your response is "well we can just approximate the time at which X overtakes Y" then you're inherently limiting the accuracy of your approximation. Divide your interval into 1000 slices and your approximation will be off by an entire order of magnitude if I require the error to be less than 10^-4

>>8428712

lol

using an illogical idea to "solve" a paradox isn't solving the paradox.

lol at getting stuck on a tough problem and so you just make a completely nonsensical solution up.

>>8428731
Just to add
>1. To travel from A to B one will pass C in which halfway between A and B
Which is undeniably correct, objective fact that can be determined experimentally
>2. To travel from C to B one will pass D which is halfway between C and B
Which is undeniably correct, objective fact that can be determined experimentally
>3. To travel from D to B one will pass E which is halfway between E to B
Which is undeniably correct, objective fact that can be determined experimentally

And so on...

There's literally nothing wrong with such framework, because it can be proven experimentally through naturalistic experiment. Without the concept of infinity, limit, and infinite sum though, this paradox is unsolvable.

I'm also surprised at how many anons jumped the gun and mistaken the dichotomy paradox as the one with Achilles and the tortoise. This particular paradox has no time element to it, just space element, and can be argued as experimental truth to the mathematical concept of infinty.

Since eventually the object reaches B, then the mathematical concept of infinity must exist.

>>8428701
Not OP, and I'm ok with infinities... but...
>Makes something up
>Asks other person to prove it

>>8428774
See >>8428758

The dichotomy paradox is not solvable without the mathematical concept of infinity. All the steps are observable and can be determined experimentally, but without the concept of infinity one cannot travel from A to B.

Since one CAN travel from A to B, a fact of which can be confirmed through experiment, that must mean that the mathematical concept of infinity exist

>>8428758
The universe is only capable of representing finite precision or quantity.

Numbers of a certain size, or precision, literally cannot be worked with nor even mentioned.

>>8428789
>The universe is only capable of representing finite precision or quantity.

More like experimentally one is limited on precision of one's instrument in which he/she observe the universe.

Space for example is infinitely divisible. For a given point A and B there must exist point C in which halfway between A and B, and so on and so on. Nothing is magical about this particular concept of "infinitely divisible"

>>8428799
>Space for example is infinitely divisible.
Unknown.

>More like experimentally one is limited on precision of one's instrument in which he/she observe the universe.
No. The universe is incapable of supporting machinery to represent and work with quantities beyond a certain size or precision. This is a hard mechanical problem that cannot be bypassed.

>>8428742
Are you saying that as Achielies overtakes the tourtise, there will not eventually be a singularity of "Time interval for halving the distance between achielies lag behind the tortise"?

Because if you are, I got some bad news for you, dumbass.

Achielies RUNS FASTER than the tortise, so overtaking it is assured.

If your math cannot HANDLE this fact, then perhapse your department needs less funding.

>No. The universe is incapable of supporting machinery to represent and work with quantities beyond a certain size or precision.

Well you and your argument has been on the losing side of history since forever. Mankind's instrument to observe the universe have continuously grow to be more precise, even so exponentially and there is no end in sight, nor experimental proof of such limit in precision.

On the other side of the argument, only a contrarian for contrarian sake, or a person severely handicapped in one's imagination cannot imagine the simple basic concept that "for a given point A and B there must be point C in which halway between A and B" which is provable every step of the way, but for some reason you started to become skeptic on loop# 10^15 or whatever in which the argument is not observable.

When two mirrors are facing eachother at an angle they create an infinite amount of reflections

>>8428816
You're mistaken the meme concept of "singulary" with simple fact of math that 1/infinity = 0.

The solution to Zeno's Achilles and Tortoise paradox lies in limit, which they taught you in 1st year highschool. There's no need to bring such meme concept of singularity and talk in buzzwords

>>8428821
>even so exponentially
Not true
>and there is no end in sight
Not remotely true
> nor experimental proof of such limit in precision.

Y'all just fucking with me now

>>8428821
>Mankind's instrument to observe
Is irrelevant. You're not actually understanding what I'm saying, probably because you don't understand the topic.

Think of it this way. We use base 10 to represent quantities. How? The machinery our brain is composed of is capable of recognizing the symbols and the notion of a place value system. Really, you could use base whatever and the matter doesn't change, but to be understood this information must be stored.

Now start writing. As long as you can. Whatever type of notation or encoding you want to use. Start trying to write the largest number you possibly can. Eventually, no matter how sophisticated the system you come up with is (which remember, must be stored for the data to be used), you will have nowhere left to write and nothing to write with. So you make a better system. A smaller system. You figure out how to make these "symbols" on an atomic level, each having a durable and self maintaining, but still readable signature. And yet still, you will run out of matter to use for this system. Maybe encode it really well, use it in chunks serially? Takes time, and again, it's still finite. You and the universe won't have enough time to use such a number, you might not even have time to find and prove the absolute limit.

Hence, mechanical limit. The universe, does not, support infinity. It doesn't allow it, and it's never shown any sign of being capable of it.

>>8428825
>You're mistaken the meme concept of "singulary" with simple fact of math that 1/infinity = 0.

Infinity isn't a number, stupid.

>>8428832
>it's never shown any sign of being capable of it.
Except when it shows that one can travel to A to B.

Give us the solution to Zeno's paradox of dichotomy, mathematically without the concept of infinity Well you can say that space IS DISCRETE, but then it seems like then you have a buttload of experimental evidence against your concept

>>8428825
>simple fact of math that 1/infinity = 0

You could say lim [x->inf] (1/x) = 0, but you can't divide 1 by infinity, because you can literally rearrange your retard equation so that infinity * 0 = 1, which makes no dumbfucking sense.

The limit is a singularity, the distance between the runners becomes infinitesimal until you reach the other side of the singularity. The exact time at which Achilles overtakes the Tortoise is a discontinuity, which is just a complex singularity.

...why do we let these high schoolers post on our Korean anime image board?

>>8428758
>I'm also surprised at how many anons jumped the gun and mistaken the dichotomy paradox as the one with Achilles and the tortoise.

ALL of zeno's paradoxes are unsolvable infinities, damnit.

>>8428845
What experiments show that space isn't discrete?

>>8427974

Made me lol. Actually a pretty good point.

>>8428714

As a scientific outlaw/occultist, this would siut me just fine. Moar infinity for me.

>>8428873
None of them. Infinite subdivision has only ever been evidenced against.

>>8428881
That's what I thought

>>8428873
For basic example, Einstein relativity (which has been proven experimentally) suggests that space can be stretched and squeezed, which goes against the assumption that space is fundamentally discrete, because if you squeeze and stretch something discrete there must be a discontinuity happening somewhere in between the stretching and squeezing

>>8428881
>say something being evidenced against
>no evidence

File: morbo.jpg (177KB, 800x640px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x640px

>>8428890
>(which has been proven experimentally)

Scientific theory does not work that way.

>>8428890
>which goes against the assumption that space is fundamentally discrete,

citation needed

>>8428930
>citation needed
>because if you squeeze and stretch something discrete there must be a discontinuity happening somewhere in between the stretching and squeezing

Simple logic my dear Watson

>>8428949
>there must be a discontinuity happening somewhere in between the stretching and squeezing

Yeah, in the math.

>>8428925
there is no other way to prove things

>>8428540
this.
it all boils down to the fact that both the sequence of positive terms and the sequence of negative terms are unbounded

>>8428983
and in space

>>8428949
so when i stretch an elastic that's proof the elastic is made up non discrete particles?

>>8427626
infinity is a meme concept

it has no practical applications

>>8428989
>and in space

Prove it.

>>8428990
At some point you're gonna break the molecular bond that your plastic will stop becoming that particular plastic and turn into elemental carbon/hydrogen. That's the discontinuity that must've arisen from stretching objects made of discrete components.

As far as relativity goes, space time is uniform and continuous throughout, without any discontinuity despite being stretched/squeezed

>Yeah, in the math.
Prove it

>>8428985
>there is no other way to prove things

Are you saying that physics research is complete?

Are you saying that Einstein is *IT* for science?

Nothing new can be learned about physics?


Scientific Theories aren't "Proven", they consist of a body of evidence to explain a hypothesis about how a part of the world works.

The science is NEVER settled, got it?

>>8428995
>Yeah, in the math.
>Prove it

I never asserted that "Space" was stretching.

I think that's YOUR claim.

>>8428998
Sorry I misquoted (or rather forgot to quote).

Meant to do
>>8428983
>yeah in the math
Prove that discontinuity arises in Einstein relativity equation when space stretches/contracts

>>8429001
>Prove that discontinuity arises in Einstein relativity equation when space stretches/contracts


First prove that the equation corrolates to reality.

>>8428993
>infinity has no practical application

Then solve >>8428758
Without using the concept of infinity. One of the foundation of calculus is the concept of mathematical infinity, and modern quantifiable science is built on the cornerstone of Newtonian calculus

>>8428996
No, I'm sayig Einstein is right.

>>8428996
>The science is NEVER settled, got it?

This is a generous assumption. If we get to a point when no new observations are being made, what can science even do.

File: mu6.gif (35KB, 399x494px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 399x494px

>>8429005
>First prove that the equation corrolates to reality.

Muon has a lifetime of ~2 micro seconds under normal settings. Without space time dilation, muons from cosmic ray collision in the upper atmosphere would never reach the Earth's surface. However since muon travel close to the space of light, it suffers from space time dilation.

With a (fairly simple) particle counter pointed toward the sky, one can experimentally observe and measure rays of muon (which has different energy and mass compared to normal electron).

There's also several nuclear reaction within minerals that can only be caused my nuclear reaction of muons, look up "cosmogenic geologic dating"

>>8429005
Pull out your phone, and pull up Google Maps.

Does it know where you are?

Then it correlates to reality.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

>>8428749
What's illogical about "when one travel from one point to another, one has to pass another point that is in between, and so on and so on"

>>8429014
>Without space time dilation, muons from cosmic ray collision in the upper atmosphere would never reach the Earth's surface.

Why not?

atmosphere is about 300km up, right?

And c is about 300,000km/s right?

So, that means a cosmic particle striking the upper atmosphere and releasing a muon has merely 1 thousandth of a second to make it to the ground, and it only exists for 2 millionths of a second.

But time dilation around the earth is enough to slow its decay by a factor of ONE THOUSAND, so that it reaches the ground...

Right?

>>8429009
>No, I'm sayig Einstein is right

Yeah, I know that's what you shills keep saying...

I'm just saying that you are wrong, and you lack the understanding to prove your position without relying on "Argument ad Populum", or Appeal to Authority.

>>8429030
>But time dilation around the earth is enough to slow its decay by a factor of ONE THOUSAND, so that it reaches the ground...

Exactly. The fact that muon is measurable from detector placed on Earth's surface means that Einstein theory of relativity must be correct

>>8429023
>Pull out your phone, and pull up Google Maps.

GPS doesn't use relativity, and never did.

tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996papers/Vol%2028_16.pdf

>>8429035
>Exactly. The fact that muon is measurable from detector placed on Earth's surface means that Einstein theory of relativity must be correct


Bullshit, muons wouldn't be able to make it to the surface, because the atmosphere is 500 times thicker than it's decay time multiplied by c.

>>8429032
what? I'm just saying Eisteins theory of relativity is correct.

>>8429039
>Bullshit, muons wouldn't be able to make it to the surface, because the atmosphere is 500 times thicker than it's decay time multiplied by c.

That's just like your opinion anon.

On the other hand though there's fairly irrefutable evidence by particle detectors around the world that hit by muons are fairly common occurrence.

>>8429041
>what? I'm just saying Eisteins theory of relativity is correct.


Nice argument.

>>8429042
>Bullshit, muons wouldn't be able to make it to the surface, because the atmosphere is 500 times thicker than it's decay time multiplied by c.

Except time dilates by a factor of 1000, hence the proof of relativity and time dilation. That's like literally the whole point Slowpoke

>>8429042
>That's just like your opinion anon.

wow, you have run out of steam already, huh?

>>8429058
>Except time dilates by a factor of 1000

So, you are saying that sattelites are experiancing time 1000 times faster than the earth, eh?

Ya fucking moron.

>>8429057
are you implying he isn't?

>>8429066
>are you implying he isn't?

who isnt.... what?

>>8429063
abandon thread

hey sci, just wanted to let yall know flamin hot cheetos can turn your stool red and make your hole burn. Perfectly fine dont call a doctor.

>>8429063
>So, you are saying that sattelites are experiancing time 1000 times faster than the earth, eh?

Let's do some math and physics, baby retard.

Centrifugal force = Gravity force
m_satelite v_satelite / r = G*m_satelite*m_earth/(r^2)

Solving for v_satelite

v = sqrt (G*M_earth/r)

Radius earth = 6400 km
Satelite orbit height = ~640 km
r = 7140 km
m_earth = 6 * 10^24 kg

v ~~ 7.5*10^3 m/s

Which is 5 orders of magnitude slower than speed of light, which hence the effect of time dilation on satelite will be negligible

Test

File: delete.jpg (40KB, 311x379px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 311x379px

so if infinity doesn't exist. How many numbers exist between zero and one?

>>8429107
Refer to:
>>8428789
>>8428802
>>8428832

>Infinities do not exist in nature

Your consciousness is Infinite.

>>8429111
Finite.

>>8429110
That's a dumb memey non-argument and just trick of semantics

>>8429114
If you can't see the underlying logic the semantics are meant to get across, it means you don't know enough and the conversation is doomed from the get go.

>>8429121
You can't prove that space is discrete other than using tricks of semantics, and dumbass analogy like "running out of material" to write infinitely large number.

A hypothesis with no proof that cannot be tested experimentally might as well be religion.

infinity conceptually exists. Just because your microbrain can't handle the concept of infinite sets doesn't mean they do not.

Bascially OP is retard and should kill himself.

>>8429126
>A hypothesis with no proof that cannot be tested experimentally might as well be religion.
And to you as well.
Have fun proving infinity meaningfully exists.

>>8427626
Your concept of "real universe" is inherently macroscopic in mature and shaped by your sensory apparatus, so claiming that infinities don't exist in the "real universe" is at best a tautology and at worst a religious statement.

>>8429134
Well I already showed tons of proof, such as the mathematical solution of Zeno's dichotomy paradox through infinite series that can be tested and proven experimentally. See >>8428758

>>8429159
You addressed nothing I said.

>>8427626
Time is still going on.

>>8427639
What preposterous slow roll troll! Clearly this [8] will suffice. QED. Further proof can be provided in the form of Arabian goggles.

>>8427626
Don't we die forever?

>>8428867
>The limit is a singularity
what do you mean? to me its sounds like you dont understand limits

>>8428737
It is weird because it implies a negative is anything other than an arbitrary direction

>>8427626
>Can we please just get rid of everything I don't understand???
Why don't you and all flat earthers, moon landing conspiracists and modern physics deniers pack your things and move to >>>/x/?

>>8430032
It's not that weird, all it add is the ability of rotation to the numbers, if you think about that is exactly what they were lacking, everything else we could do with them was just scaling.

We already use vector quantities to represent certain stuff, is it so weird to add the ability to directly multiply some of these quantities?

>>8427626
It's a tool.

>>8430290
no u r

>>8428873
Nice logical fallacy. I could smash your puny logic like a sledgehammer coming down on a grape but it's not even worth my time

>>8429132
Your logic is nonexistent

>>8428528
#InfinityLivesMatter

>>8427626
In nature infinity cannot exist in a world of non-infinite. If Universe has a beginning, then it's not infinite. The gravity inside black holes is powerful, but not endless - it's always their concentrated mass that has an effect upon matter outside. So, stellar black holes have a lot less smaller pull than supermassive black holes.
So, it has it's place in maths like >>8427639
said.

>>8428712
The time is still going on, you're just making smaller steps. Whenever you wanted, you could reach the end in an eye blink, but instead you chose to slow down until you die. It doesn't mean the final is an infinity away - all you're doing, is manipulating the concept of time as we know it, to your own. In reality, the end is reachable, unless we're talking expansion at the speed of light - you better be faster than Bolt here then, nigga.

File: equation1.png (15KB, 800x201px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 800x201px

>>8428890

If you treat a one-dimensional space as a set containing all x-intercepts of a sine wave and change it's frequency at a location, space can be stretched and squeezed while remaining both infinite and discrete.

File: pepe_thinking.jpg (28KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 499x499px

>>8427946

>he doesn't think in 4D
>he doesn't realize the intuitiveness of imaginary number
>he cannot visual in 4 dimensional complex space


why is sub-ape allowed to exist?

File: 1417605202730.jpg (38KB, 436x348px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 436x348px

>>8428712
We solve it by noting that it's not a paradox, but just a logical fallacy.
You're saying "infinities exist, because look what happens when I divide this interval up in infinite pieces that become infinitely small", when the entire premise is that you /cannot/ in reality do this. Dividing distance in an abstract mathematical way obviously doesn't need to have anything to do with what goes on in nature.

>>8427946
>imaginary number nonsense
have fun engineering bridges that don't collapse from their own weight
i don't know if or how you got through high school/college and by extension i don't know what you're doing on this board if you can't even understand that mathematical concepts aren't limited by the physical world
it's like claiming that integration can't exist because our world is dominated by discrete values

>>8427626
The number 1 does not exit in nature. Neither does zero. They at man made mathematical constructs. Should we ban them as well? Bottom line, infinity is a concept. As long as it is used properly in the context of the definition and application to the math we are exploring, it is not ambiguous.

What need to be banned is anyone who misuses mathematical construct.

>>8427974
Lo to the fuckin l

>>8428712
>Zeno's paradox
fgt pls

>get rid of infinity
>entirety of Biochem's kinetics breaks down

>imaginary concepts should be banned
Are you sure you would survive a week without your chinese 2D little girls?

>>8428730
His paradoxes are supposed to be retarded, he literally made them up to be retarded but difficult to argue or reason about with the tools at his time. He did this because he got fucking buttmad when he lost an argument with another philosopher.

>>8428881
There is no evidence against it.

>>8427948
>>8428737
>>8431308
>>8431742
falling for "this is just like that imaginary number nonsense"

These are the men teaching the next generation of undergrads

>>8428712
>If infinity doesn't exist, then how does one solve Zeno's paradox of dichotomy

I think the only proper way to explain this is to assume infinity DOESN'T exist

OP is fucking retarded