Topic: There are different sizes of infinity
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ started this discussion 14 years ago #21,854
There's countable, and uncountable infinity. Where whole numbers, and fractions are "countable", whereas decimal sets are not. They are not countable because, I forgot why, they just aren't, okay?
But the countable infinities still aren't countable, because they are infinities. A million is just as close to infinity as one is. God damn, so fucking confusing.
Do you know what a singularity is? A place in a black whole where time, and space becomes meaningless. But clearly only by perception, because black holes swallow shit up.
The universe is finite, but what's at the end of it, an infinity of empty space? More universes? What distinguishes one universe from another?
Science is dumb. Who even fucking invents numbers like Googelplex? Idiots, that's who.
But the countable infinities still aren't countable, because they are infinities. A million is just as close to infinity as one is. God damn, so fucking confusing.
Do you know what a singularity is? A place in a black whole where time, and space becomes meaningless. But clearly only by perception, because black holes swallow shit up.
The universe is finite, but what's at the end of it, an infinity of empty space? More universes? What distinguishes one universe from another?
Science is dumb. Who even fucking invents numbers like Googelplex? Idiots, that's who.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #346,047
*cardinalities, not sizes, thanks.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #346,049
@OP
A million is just as close to infinity as one is. God damn, so fucking confusing.
One dollar is hardly going to buy a mega dollar jumbo jet.
A million is just as close to infinity as one is. God damn, so fucking confusing.
Green !YzDEWwv9Z2 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #346,051
Try not to think about it too much. It will drive you crazy.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #346,052
Babbys first intro to set theory. Mix in sophomoric philosophy and you get another great thread by postmortem.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 23 seconds later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #346,053
Thinking about this. Infinity seems so limiting, so small by comparison to what I expect.
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 30 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #346,055
Oh I'm so fucking sorry I don't post super advanced mathematics or philosophy. I'm sorry I post things I'm sure most can discuss. Don't fucking pretend like you comprehend this shit either.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #346,056
That is incorrect.
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #346,059
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 seconds later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #346,060
@346,055 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
if you weren't aware, this site is populated with anonymous assholes and trolls.
if you weren't aware, this site is populated with anonymous assholes and trolls.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #346,065
infinties are countable, but only if you treat an infinity as a single unit
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #346,067
@346,055 (Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+)
Understanding basic set theory requires no advanced knowledge of mathematics. It only requires you understand a few simple notations and spend a very very modest amount of study. You know, with a book.
On second thought, since it can't be understood by reading two paragraphs on wikipedia, I guess it's super advanced, genius-tier shit.
Understanding basic set theory requires no advanced knowledge of mathematics. It only requires you understand a few simple notations and spend a very very modest amount of study. You know, with a book.
On second thought, since it can't be understood by reading two paragraphs on wikipedia, I guess it's super advanced, genius-tier shit.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #346,069
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #346,070
ninjj joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #346,072
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #346,076
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #346,077
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #346,082
@previous (F)
please google "countably infinite" so you can at least start to understand why what you're saying is beyond retarded.
please google "countably infinite" so you can at least start to understand why what you're saying is beyond retarded.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 59 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,093
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,095
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,098
#346,055
Intriguing YES. Danger Danger Will Robinson. I remember from a class I took on set theorems. The subject of a variety of infinities came up or it was part of a chapter. The expert on this was Kanter or Cantor and he drove himself insane working on this stuff and I think he died in a insane asylum. He was the expert on decimal sets vs natural numbers.
Intriguing YES. Danger Danger Will Robinson. I remember from a class I took on set theorems. The subject of a variety of infinities came up or it was part of a chapter. The expert on this was Kanter or Cantor and he drove himself insane working on this stuff and I think he died in a insane asylum. He was the expert on decimal sets vs natural numbers.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 31 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,103
@OP
You sophist!
You sophist!
Anonymous E replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,117
@346,098 (C)
Cantor did NOT drive himself insane from his work on this. He had a long history of depression and received extremely harsh criticism from other mathematicians throughout his entire career. These things, along with the death of his son, were what caused his decline.
Cantor did NOT drive himself insane from his work on this. He had a long history of depression and received extremely harsh criticism from other mathematicians throughout his entire career. These things, along with the death of his son, were what caused his decline.
Anonymous E double-posted this 14 years ago, 25 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,118
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 30 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,120
@346,117 (E)
Are you sure his work had nothing to do with it? I heard they found diagonal slashes on his wrists after a suicide attempt.
Are you sure his work had nothing to do with it? I heard they found diagonal slashes on his wrists after a suicide attempt.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,134
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,156
Math will blow your mind. If you put a 1 with a hundred zeros after it, that number is bigger than all the particles in the observable universe. Yet other numbers are so big, they wouldn't fit within the observable universe. And those numbers are finite! Like the others said, infinity is some heavy shit and I'm content with just having a basic understanding of the concept.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Green !YzDEWwv9Z2 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,157
Did you try killing yourself, OP? I don't want you to, but it was you or another guy making a thread a few weeks back. I love you though.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 32 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,158
@346,156 (Ks !KansasxqvM)I was going to disagree with you & decided to go beyond the Google, directly to the Googleplex. So looking up total particles in the observable universe = 2.5×10
We know there is much more then the observable universe. Bottom line - a Google is one hell of a large number and a Googleplex is also the name of Google's Headquarters.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,163
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,188
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)here's something that's pretty crazy: imagine a 12" ruler, and divide it in half. now take that next half and divide it in half. continue to do so, ad infinitum. the distance between the two points you are dividing will never reach zero, if it did, then you wouldn't be able to double the distance over and over and reach 12" again. therefor there is an infinite amount of distance between 2 ends of a ruler.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 14 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,189
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,192
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 37 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,197
@346,189 (G)
@previous (F)
seriously, divide 12 in half.
now divide 6
now 3
1.5
.75
.375
.1875
.09375
.046875
.0234375
.01171875
.005859375
.0029296875
.00146484375
see how it approaches zero but never quite reaches it?
ergo, infinite distance between 2 points.
unless of course space-time isn't a smooth continuous surface like Einstein believed. if it's some kind of foam with pixel-like elements then of course this wouldn't work, you'd eventually not be able to divide distance in half anymore.
@previous (F)
seriously, divide 12 in half.
now divide 6
now 3
1.5
.75
.375
.1875
.09375
.046875
.0234375
.01171875
.005859375
.0029296875
.00146484375
see how it approaches zero but never quite reaches it?
ergo, infinite distance between 2 points.
unless of course space-time isn't a smooth continuous surface like Einstein believed. if it's some kind of foam with pixel-like elements then of course this wouldn't work, you'd eventually not be able to divide distance in half anymore.
Anonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,199
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,200
@346,197 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
no, you're talking about tangible pieces of a ruler, not "distance" you fucking retard. stop trolling.
no, you're talking about tangible pieces of a ruler, not "distance" you fucking retard. stop trolling.
Anonymous C replied with this 14 years ago, 22 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,204
Postmortem !!Qe8ScDbX+ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 18 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #346,210
@346,157 (Green !YzDEWwv9Z2)
No, that wasn't me. Thank you for caring though. I have a recording of your voice on my phone btw.
No, that wasn't me. Thank you for caring though. I have a recording of your voice on my phone btw.
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 43 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,219
@346,200 (G)
okay then, let's not use the ruler example. hold your fingers out in front of you and point your index fingers at each other from a distance of 12"
now move them half that distance closer.
now do it again
and again
and again.
and keep doing it.
see how your finger tips can get infinitely close to each other without actually touching?
it helps to see the gap if you put a light behind your fingers so it shines through.
of course when your fingers get close enough together that the gap is narrower than the wavelength of a photon you'll no longer be able to see the light.
now divide that in half.
don't forget, if your fingers actually touch then you've overshot your divided length.
@346,204 (C)
i don't expect everyone to understand high level conceptual mathematics or theoretical physics
okay then, let's not use the ruler example. hold your fingers out in front of you and point your index fingers at each other from a distance of 12"
now move them half that distance closer.
now do it again
and again
and again.
and keep doing it.
see how your finger tips can get infinitely close to each other without actually touching?
it helps to see the gap if you put a light behind your fingers so it shines through.
of course when your fingers get close enough together that the gap is narrower than the wavelength of a photon you'll no longer be able to see the light.
now divide that in half.
don't forget, if your fingers actually touch then you've overshot your divided length.
@346,204 (C)
i don't expect everyone to understand high level conceptual mathematics or theoretical physics
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,221
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
> assuming spacetime isn't quantized
lol bud/bud bud
> assuming spacetime isn't quantized
lol bud/bud bud
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,222
@previous (B)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48863290/ns/technology_and_science-science/
or isn't it?
TL;DR: In other words, the photons' near-simultaneous arrival indicates that space-time is smooth as Einstein suggested, rather than pixilated as modern theories require
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48863290/ns/technology_and_science-science/
or isn't it?
TL;DR: In other words, the photons' near-simultaneous arrival indicates that space-time is smooth as Einstein suggested, rather than pixilated as modern theories require
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,223
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
quantized spacetime doesn't necessarily imply quantum foam. that is just one explanation.
quantized spacetime doesn't necessarily imply quantum foam. that is just one explanation.
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,225
@346,219 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
> hold your fingers out in front of you and point your index fingers at each other from a distance of 12"
> now move them around the shaft of the niggercock and put it in your mouth and pull on it gently.
> now do it again
> and again
> and again.
> and keep doing it.
> see how your throat fills up?
Niggercocks Spacetime may be regarded as quantized, but there is a map-territory disconnect going on here that you are ignoring. There are an infinite number of real numbers between any two real numbers. We can use these numbers to describe space or time, but that doesn't mean they are space or time. The way our universe behaves doesn't necessarily depend on the abstract concepts we use to describe it.
> hold your fingers out in front of you and point your index fingers at each other from a distance of 12"
> now move them around the shaft of the niggercock and put it in your mouth and pull on it gently.
> now do it again
> and again
> and again.
> and keep doing it.
> see how your throat fills up?
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,229
@previous (K)
so what's happening here is that when you're doing it you over shoot the distance you're supposed to be halving and your fingers are touching so it seems like space is quantized. if you actually only go half that much distance closer then your fingers will never touch.
consider travel from point A to point B through a vacuum in spacetime.
starting from rest at point A you begin moving point B, we'll say at a constant velocity to keep it simple.
Now in a vacuum whatever amount of momentum you have you'll carry with you as potential energy. essentially that means that the amount of distance you may travel is greater than that of the distance you actually need to go. you only need to go a short distance, but momentum can carry you on infinitely through a vacuum. therefore your actual end point B is moved further back (to infinity), we'll call this B2(of course there is a wall at B which will end your travel making travel to B2 impossible, but the energy is there.)
Now halfway to B we slow down, we are only going to travel half the distance from the midpoint to B. This means that your loss of momentum decreases the potential energy of the system, and B2 is drawn back closer to B, but still well past it (out to infinity.)
once you reach the 3/4 mark you once again slow down and lose energy drawing B2 closer and closer to B.
eventually the two endpoints may appear to be overlapping, but as long as you have energy B2 is still off in infinity, no matter how close it is to B. And, if you actually reach B then you were halving energy at the wrong point and moved B, your actual endpoint, closer to A. close enough for you to touch it from a position appearing to be infinitely far away, but it's not, you were actually halving the distance between A and B2, and this is greater than the distance from A to B, and you hit the wall.
make sense now?
so what's happening here is that when you're doing it you over shoot the distance you're supposed to be halving and your fingers are touching so it seems like space is quantized. if you actually only go half that much distance closer then your fingers will never touch.
consider travel from point A to point B through a vacuum in spacetime.
starting from rest at point A you begin moving point B, we'll say at a constant velocity to keep it simple.
Now in a vacuum whatever amount of momentum you have you'll carry with you as potential energy. essentially that means that the amount of distance you may travel is greater than that of the distance you actually need to go. you only need to go a short distance, but momentum can carry you on infinitely through a vacuum. therefore your actual end point B is moved further back (to infinity), we'll call this B2(of course there is a wall at B which will end your travel making travel to B2 impossible, but the energy is there.)
Now halfway to B we slow down, we are only going to travel half the distance from the midpoint to B. This means that your loss of momentum decreases the potential energy of the system, and B2 is drawn back closer to B, but still well past it (out to infinity.)
once you reach the 3/4 mark you once again slow down and lose energy drawing B2 closer and closer to B.
eventually the two endpoints may appear to be overlapping, but as long as you have energy B2 is still off in infinity, no matter how close it is to B. And, if you actually reach B then you were halving energy at the wrong point and moved B, your actual endpoint, closer to A. close enough for you to touch it from a position appearing to be infinitely far away, but it's not, you were actually halving the distance between A and B2, and this is greater than the distance from A to B, and you hit the wall.
make sense now?
Anonymous H replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,258
this thread is gloriousAnonymous F replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,259
Anonymous K replied with this 14 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #346,267
@346,229 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
THAT THEORY ONLY WORKS IN 4 SIMULTANEOUS DAY 4 CORNER
SAME EARTH ROTATION. YOU WERE EDUCATED STUPID. PLEASE
STOP PRACTICING EVIL ONENESS UPON EARTH OF QUADRANTS.
THAT THEORY ONLY WORKS IN 4 SIMULTANEOUS DAY 4 CORNER
SAME EARTH ROTATION. YOU WERE EDUCATED STUPID. PLEASE
STOP PRACTICING EVIL ONENESS UPON EARTH OF QUADRANTS.