Infinity * Zero = Any Number ARGUE HERE

[Shashakiro]

Originally Posted by eagleboy

too long to quote

You clearly don't understand the concept of infinity at all.

Infinity is not a value, or a number. You cannot comprehend what an infinite number of groups of 0 apples is, and you can't say "at any number of groups, there are still zero apples" because as soon as you begin to consider any number of groups, you aren't considering infinity anymore.

Also, you're obviously lying about having aced calculus, or you'd know that lim k - > inf ([an integer]/k) is zero, and that's really another way of saying "[an integer]/infinity."

[eagleboy]

Originally Posted by Shashakiro

You clearly don't understand the concept of infinity at all.

Infinity is not a value, or a number. You cannot comprehend what an infinite number of groups of 0 apples is, and you can't say "at any number of groups, there are still zero apples" because as soon as you begin to consider any number of groups, you aren't considering infinity anymore.

Also, you're obviously lying about having aced calculus, or you'd know that lim k - > inf ([an integer]/k) is zero, and that's really another way of saying "[an integer]/infinity."

Cool. I get it now. And I did ace it, I just haven't done the lim k thing in a while. And by ace, I mean A-... lol. Thanks, Shash.

[talisman]

eagleboy, you are simply incorrect. Learn math if you must, but inf * 0 is not 0... it is undefined.

edit: ninja'd etc

[eagleboy]

Originally Posted by talisman

eagleboy, you are simply incorrect. Learn math if you must, but inf * 0 is not 0... it is undefined.

Okay, okay... I already said I agreed; now quiet.

But no, seriously, let's end it. I accept that I'm wrong.

[Shashakiro]

Glad to be of service.

[The Blue Blur]

The concepts of infinity and nothingness have fascinated humans since prehistoric times. Any argument made over these two concepts is an unholy battle.

[aperson]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Hey.

You're only proving the reasons why I hate mathematicians.

So, keep going. You're only alienating yourselves.

If a pattern continues to grow more and more different, they can never be the same. Only in a messed-up mathematician's head are they the same.

You guys are so amazingly elitist that you use """"FACTS"""" to prove things that are otherwise logically different.

And some parents wonder why their kids hate math. This is how professors act too. MATH IS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING EVEN THOUGH IT'S ILLOGICAL.

Logic: 0.999... repeating is not equal to one.
Your stick problem always has more pebbles than sticks.
1.4c is not equal to 1.2c. Look, how can a 2 equal a 4?

Math: 0.999... repeating is one. Don't try to argue, infidels.
Turns out that even though there are more pebbles than sticks for all real numbers, they're the same number in the end. Don't try to refute this, I have numbers!
light rofl

Kilga's statement: 0.9~ < x < 1 is similar in structure to Cantor's Diagonal Argument. I suggest you do some reading on it (after reading about bijection from the previous post). Not only will it explain Kilga's assertion better, but if you understand it, you will surely see the premises behind the sticks and pebbles argument.

The problem is, is that sizes of infinities are hard to measure. and thus, we use the term cardinality, not size, of a set. Like I said in my previous post, most things either have the size of the Natural Numbers or the size of the Reals. And, like I said, both the pebbles and the sticks can be mapped onto the natural numbers in a 1 to 1 form so both have the same cardinality. However, yes, we do intuitively know that the ratio will consistently be 3:1

[Minion133]

Stepmania project: [lim x->+inf] 1/x % done

i see what you did there

ps

Originally Posted by Minion133

infinity isn't a number. it's the concept of the number line never ending.

what do i win

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by aperson

Kilga's statement: 0.9~ < x < 1 is similar in structure to Cantor's Diagonal Argument.

I like my 9(1/9) argument. =(

[JKPolk]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

I like my 9(1/9) argument. =(

But it's wrong.

9 x (.111111....) is not the same as saying 9 x (1/9). .111.... is an approximation of 1/9, and so 9 x (.111... ) is an approximation of 9 x 1/9. .999... is certainly a good approximation of 1, but what you used was a flawed proof.

[igotrhythm]

I've taken calculus, and those sorts of limits pop up occasionally. It's an example of what we call an indeterminate limit because there's no way to tell where the limit is going to end up. So what we do is we try to manipulate the expression so the limit is in either the form 0/0 or infinity/infinity, and we then use a little trick called L'Hopital's Rule (sometimes more than once) to get the value of the limit. I would pull out some examples, but I'm too lazy.

Sorry if anything I said has already been said.

[Kit-]

Originally Posted by JKPolk

But it's wrong.

9 x (.111111....) is not the same as saying 9 x (1/9). .111.... is an approximation of 1/9, and so 9 x (.111... ) is an approximation of 9 x 1/9. .999... is certainly a good approximation of 1, but what you used was a flawed proof.

Hay guyz. .99999999 = 9/10 + 9/100 + .... = a0/(1-r)=(9/10)/(1-1/10)=(9/10)/(9/10)=1. It's not an approximation. .11, .111, .1111, etc are approximations. .1 repeating infinitely is not.

Edit: I see you cornandbeans. Nice music.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by igotrhythm

Sorry if anything I said has already been said.

Pretty much all of that has been said, along with the fact that limiting your scope of infinity to just calculus is of little use to the argument. Read the thread before you post.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[abagane]

Originally Posted by A2_Sauce

Therefore Infinity * Zero = Infinity -- when you put infinity on the other side.

If you were to multiply any number by zero, then it's zero. So Infinity * zero would be zero. Unless you take into account the fact that Infinity is a concept, not a number.

[Shashakiro]

Originally Posted by abagane

If you were to multiply any number by zero, then it's zero. So Infinity * zero would be zero.

read the thread, it explains why this is wrong

[Kilgamayan]

He actually explains himself why it's wrong in his next sentence.

[GigaAndy]

Heh.
For one infinity is not a number it is an expression, and secondly you can not divide anything by 0, because division is when you split something- you can't split something into no pieces. And whenever you times something by 0 you always end up with 0, because if you nothing times something, then you can't get anything out of it.

[spyke252]

Originally Posted by GigaAndy

Heh.
For one infinity is not a number it is an expression, and secondly you can not divide anything by 0, because division is when you split something- you can't split something into no pieces. And whenever you times something by 0 you always end up with 0, because if you nothing times something, then you can't get anything out of it.

You can take the limit as k -> 0- of 1/k which== -infinity.
You can take the limit as k -> 0+ of 1/k which== infinity.


You cant take the limit as k -> 0 of 1/k, because the limits from the right and left do not equal each other, so the limit DNE.

Your reasoning is flawed, as you cannot split something into 1/2 a piece. (Conservation of mass) Yet, 1/(1/2) = 2.

[beatmouse]

Originally Posted by GigaAndy

Heh.
For one infinity is not a number it is an expression, and secondly you can not divide anything by 0, because division is when you split something- you can't split something into no pieces. And whenever you times something by 0 you always end up with 0, because if you nothing times something, then you can't get anything out of it.

Thanks tips

[GigaAndy]

With objects no, but with numbers yes you can split something into 0.5, it will give you double.