How can inifinity exist?

[platinum87]

So would it be possible to get a computer to list the zeros for ((100^100)^100)^100000

?

Define list?

 

[whitecrook]

the largest known number is graham's number:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

but who's to say you can't add another to it and make it even larger

Example of a 2-colored 3-dimensional cube containing one single-coloured 4-vertex planar complete subgraph. The subgraph is shown below the cube. Note that this cube would contain no such subgraph if, for example, the bottom edge in the present subgraph were replaced by a blue edge — thus proving by counterexample that N* > 3.

That exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Morbius]

the largest known number is graham's number:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

but who's to say you can't add another to it and make it even larger

It's not the largest known number. What makes it special is that it's the largest number that has arisen from a solution to a mathematical problem.

 

[kwerk]

What's at the edge of universe, beyond the edge of all space?

What's beyond the edge of a DF:BHD map?

 

[manic_man]

Infinity doesn't have to exist to be defined.

Effectively, it doesn't exist in any any way we can test as anything other than a logical conclusion.

Or to put it another way, infinity doesn't exist to us, we made it up to make our rules and patterns we use to describe the universe (i.e. Maths), make logical sense.

 

[Inquisitor]

the largest known number is graham's number:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

but who's to say you can't add another to it and make it even larger

So G is known, but G + 1 is unknown? How about exp(G)? That's quite a bit bigger than Graham's number and it's still "known".

The idea that some numbers on the real number line are "unknown" is nonsensical

 

[kwerk]

Dont need to physically write it down for it to exist,


10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

The number above is larger than the amount of atoms in the observable universe

You're just applying a function to shorten it, in this case base 10. There is no new information being introduced. All you're saying is "take this number and repeat it this way". It's not a number it's instruction on how to create a number from a much smaller amount of information.

 

[Inquisitor]

You're just applying a function to shorten it, in this case base 10. There is no new information being introduced. All you're saying is "take this number and repeat it this way". It's not a number it's instruction on how to create a number from a much smaller amount of information.

A large number represents no more information than a small number. They're just points on a line (the real number line), in much the same way that two different points in space don't represent different "amounts" of information.

What would you say about transcendental numbers like π and e? They have no finite expansion in any number base, so how would your represent them?

 

[Efour]

lolmaths

 

[paddy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

Yup, my head just exploded.

 

[Inquisitor]

This reminds me of Look Around You

 

[dl8860]

So mathematics is like a religion because it can only be internally validated?










problem?

ha

 

[Ghosteh]

So would it be possible to get a computer to list the zeros for ((100^100)^100)^100000

?

No, because there wouldn't be enough sectors on every hard disk on earth to store all the zeros lol.

 

[Dabbles]

Infinity is a concept, used to describe a number with endless magnitude. That is all.

 

[kwerk]

A large number represents no more information than a small number. They're just points on a line (the real number line), in much the same way that two different points in space don't represent different "amounts" of information.

What would you say about transcendental numbers like π and e? They have no finite expansion in any number base, so how would your represent them?

I suppose it comes down to uniqueness. If you could observe every particle in the universe for a time frame, and assign a number to the position of each particle, each number would be unique. You couldn't just arrive at a number from a formula, you have to have the corresponding unique information (particle location). You could not compute anything from what you already have so far.

But as soon as you start applying functions to the final number, like +1, it's not going to give you any new information because that new +1 number is not assigned to anything unique, you'd have to assign it to an existing particle location. And if you applied a function to that "new" information you would get the same result as for the first number that was assigned to that location. All you are doing is manipulating existing finite information.

 

[Sinny]

What's at the edge of universe, beyond the edge of all space?

Space

 

[D.P.]

To represent an infinite number the information must be stored somewhere right? But nobody can prove there is an infinite amount of information in the universe, so how can you "store" an infinite number?

It seems to me there must be a finite amount of information and probabilities in the universe and time, and if you expressed it as a number it would eventually be exhausted and have to start stealing information from the beginning and looping it.

It would appear to be infinite, but really it's not. You could say that process in itself is infinite but it's not, because if you counted the iterations there would be no way to store the number! You are simply taking information off the beginning and adding it to the end. Maybe that's all "time" is?

when you write down the number one hundred do yo really write down 100 digits, or the three digits 1,0 and 0? When you write down 1 billion, do you draw 1 billion symbols or simply write the text "1 billion".
Infinity has a symbol, a sideways 8.

Problem solved.

 

[agnes]

I passed notes to a hot girl in math.

I can't help you.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

To represent an infinite number the information must be stored somewhere right? But nobody can prove there is an infinite amount of information in the universe, so how can you "store" an infinite number?

It seems to me there must be a finite amount of information and probabilities in the universe and time, and if you expressed it as a number it would eventually be exhausted and have to start stealing information from the beginning and looping it.

It would appear to be infinite, but really it's not. You could say that process in itself is infinite but it's not, because if you counted the iterations there would be no way to store the number! You are simply taking information off the beginning and adding it to the end. Maybe that's all "time" is?

This is not how maths works.

 

[Weaver]

Interesting question.

In short Algebra is an abstract concept it has many symbols of which infinity is just one. Apparently the one you have trouble with.


Lol if you think infinity is a difficult one to get your head round wait till you try zero. I would put it to you that it is a far more elusive abstract which is much closer to home and could be argued shares similar principles.


Read ‘The nothing that is’ by Robert Kaplan discussing the history of Zero.


------