There are infinite natural numbers. You can take each of those natural numbers and multiply them by 2 and get a new infinite amount of natural numbers. You can repeat this on the new infinite set ad infinitum. You can do the same thing with 3,4,5 etc. on any of those sets in any order ad infinitum. and exponentation, tetration, etc. on any of those sets in any order ad infinitum. Then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And an infinite number of those infinities. And…(infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And that infinitely times. And…) continues forever. And that continues forever. And that continues forever. And that continues forever. And…(…)…
>>534069169physical reality is a hologram is all math nothing is real we are programs we cant die
I read this as "there are infinite serial numbers. You can take each of those serial numbers and multiply them by 2 and..."
>>534069169>>534069288if you try to escape youll either be recycled and reincarnated or moved to another timeline in your current lifedont try it, believe me it gets much worse if you do
>>534069169Yes, but can you name all of them?
>amerinegro understand the concept of infinity aged 43.75>is mindblowntheres no force in the world that would convince me anglo-unitedstatesians are white
>>534069414>moved to another timelineWhat's the timeline where I remove my brainstem with a 12ga shotgun?
>>534069169Yeah you fucking moron, did you JUST learn what set theory is?
>>534069169>There are infinite natural numbersI don't believe this. I believe that there is a Maximum Number of The Universe, but it is so large, that we will never figure out what it is. Any larger numbers that we may speak about are simply mathematical abstractions.
>>534069169Cantors diagonalization theorem is jewish
>>534069169Congratulations anon, you just reinvented cardinal and ordinal numbers.
>>534069169Numbers aren’t real. They are measuring points. Another way to look at it, two objects are .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 nanometers apart. You can mathematically claim there are an infinite number of points that can measured between the two objects. Halfway between them, 1/4 between them, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, you can go on forever with fractional distances between the two objects, but in reality they can’t get any closer. There isn’t room between them for all the points one can claim to measure with math.
>>534069555Checked, but there is nothing moronic about learning, so wasted.
>>534069169You posted this already, and I shot you down. There is not infinite ANYTHING. There are concepts involving limitless algorithms, but the statement "There are infinite natural numbers" is false.They are not.There are not.There will not be.You can not.You will die first and the universe will evaporate.>You can>You can>You canis False.won't happen.Go ahead, try.Stop drinking kool-aid.
>>534069604>. I believe that there is a Maximum Number of The Universeok, that number plus 1
>>534069169politics?
Finally, the thread I have been waiting for.
>>534069169As an american there are 2 numbers you are not allowed to use
>>534069169I can think of 2011 of them
>You can take each of those natural numbers and multiply them by 2 and get a new infinite amount of natural numbersNo because infinity is not a natural number lil dumbfuck
>>534069169>Then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinitiesNope, that's just aleph null, the smallest infinity. Aleph-one is the cardinality of the continuum, e.g. the real numbers. Multiplication and division don't move you from one infinite cardinality to another. But the conclusion is correct that there are infinitely many infinities. The actual reason is different.
>>534069604How many real numbers are between zero and one?
>>534069169Math is fake and gay. Thats why Galois decided to take on a suicidal duel.
>>534072066>but the statement "There are infinite natural numbers" is false.Then what's the largest natural number?>>534075360OP is correct there in the first part. Infinity is not a natural number, but there are infinitely many natural numbers. OP is incorrect in the second part. It results in the same quantity of numbers (aleph null).
>>534069169DudeWeed
>>534069169>There are infinite natural numbersNo.At least they cannot be said to "be". Can you list them? No. Do they manifets in reality? No.Natural numbers certainly go very high, but there is no indication of them being infinite in practice, only in theory.>You can take each of those natural numbers and multiply them by 2 and get a new infinite amount of natural numbers.No, even assuming infinite natural numbers you already had all duplicate infinite natural numbers the first time.>You can repeat this on the new infinite set ad infinitum.No, you cannot even do it once.Same case for your other 3 calculations.>but an infinite number of those infinitiesYes except no because there isn't even one.Being wrong 7 times in one post is impressive.
>>534069169you should use that gun on yourself
>>534077337>there is no indication of them being infinite in practice, only in theory.Convenient, then, that numbers are theoretical things.>No, you cannot even do it once.N*2Gosh, look at that.
>>534077337>No, even assuming infinite natural numbers you already had all duplicate infinite natural numbers the first time.Did you just step out of the 1850s? The set theorists proved the existence of multiple infinities with bijection over a century ago
>>534078282In fairness, set theory is more than just casual nerdery that anons can be expected to absorb by diffusion.
>>534075934The definition of the answer to your question is unlimited. That does not mean "There are".
>>534072066True, infinity is not a thing. Even the word is a misnomer the same way "nothing" is. To illustrate how these words are errors in language, it would be as if I said "I am a not-woman". We know there's something off about that, but why? Because a not-x isn't something, negations can't be used in the positive sense. It's this error in language that leads to errors in logic too, because infinity and nothing are treated as things when they're not. A thing is a thing, there is no thing which is not a thing. Whatever is finite is finite, there is no thing finite which is not finite. Things are by definition finite and limited, so there is no thing which is not limited or finite.
>>534078282You can't math voodoo a logical contradiction into existence. The idea of multiple infinities is bordering schizophrenia.
>>534069169Georg Cantor reincarnated as a retard
>>534079110>The definition of the answer to your question is unlimited.So what is the cardinality of the set of natural numbers?>That does not mean "There are".What do you think it means for a number to exist? Can you point to 2? Not two things. The number.>>534079737>Because a not-x isn't something, negations can't be used in the positive sense.They're perfectly cromulent as descriptors, which can then be nouned. So, some concepts are finite. Some are not. Those which are not are infinite (in-finite). Infinity is (that which is not finite). In math, it refers to a variety of non-finite concepts. Like, for example, the number of points in a circle.>>534079849>The idea of multiple infinities is bordering schizophrenia.You can one-to-one map the natural numbers to the rational numbers, so they have the same cardinality, but you cannot map the natural numbers to the real numbers, because there are far too many reals for that to work. real numbers have a different (still infinite) cardinality than the natural numbers.
>>534069169numbers aren't real
>>534080247No one tell this anon about the real numbers.
>>534069169Infinite Infinite is redundant and should be reduced to Infinite
>>534069465We go to school with monkeys, and soon you will as well
Nope that is NOT true OP. There are only ten numbers including zero. People just reuse them a lot. It’s very simple. And that’s why you also have ten fingers and ten toes.There. We all learned something today.
>>534080195>which can then be nounedNo, they can't, by definition. It's like trying to turn not-woman into a noun. The negation of a thing isn't a thing.>some concepts are finite. Some are notNo, they're not, all concepts are finite because if it's not finite then it doesn't exist.>real numbers have a different (still infinite) cardinality than the natural numbers.Implying there are different infinities, an impossible absurdity. Only things, which are finite and differential can exist in multiplicity. Only things, which are finite and diffential, can have different sizes.Math is an expression which is supposed to reflect reality, whether tangible or intangible. This means logic is prior to math, finite =/= not-finite, this is an iron clad fact. If your math starts accepting logical impossibilities it is schizophrenic.
>>534080680>No, they can't, by definition.I just did it there. What now, bitch?>No, they're not, all concepts are finite because if it's not finite then it doesn't exist.How many points are there in a circle?>Implying there are different infinitiesI straight up told you that and gave an example. If you don't understand the difference, I can explain in more detail.>Math is an expression which is supposed to reflect reality,No it isn't. Who told you that?
>>534080195>What do you think it means for a number to exist? Can you point to 2?So you concede my point. Congratulations, you finally figured it out.
>>534079737Yes, you get it. You are part of an arbitrarily not-large set of those who do not not.
>>534079737>Things are by definition finite and limited,infinity is not a thing in that sense. it's an amount. amounts can have an absence of limit.
>>534081000Are you implying that you're some sort of anti-Idealist who thinks that ideas don't exist?
>>534080871>I just did it there. What now, bitch?An error in language can't change reality>How many points are there in a circle?There is no limit to how many points there are in a circle, this doesn't mean that there is an infinity, or that a bigger circle has a bigger infinity. To say there is an infinity is like saying there is a not-woman. To say there is a bigger "x" implies that x is finite because only whatever is finite has a size and is different.>No it isn't. Who told you that?Ok so what is it supposed to be? Just some abstract nonsense which has no relation to logic or reality? It's worse than that actually because it can't even be conceived, abstractions should at least be conceivable, but a finity which is not finite is inconceivable. Why do mathematicians claim that they proved there are different infinities, that there are infinite sets, that infinity can be encapsulated if they thought math shouldn't reflect something about reality? Just admit then it's schizophrenic nonsense which has rules that the math priests made up and they dictated that a thing can be infinite because they say so, don't act like it represets reality at all.
>>534081430Oh when I start implying shit, you'll know.
>>534081592>An error in language can't change realityYou claimed that some linguistic thing can't be done in reply to a post in which that specific thing had been done. The reality is just up the page for everyone to see.>There is no limit to how many points there are in a circleSo the number of points in a circle is not finite.>this doesn't mean that there is an infinityLiterally does.>or that a bigger circle has a bigger infinity.A big circle contains exactly the same number of points as a small circle (aleph-one).>To say there is an infinity is like saying there is a not-woman.Well, men exist.>To say there is a bigger "x" implies that x is finiteNope. There are just more ways for something to lack finiteness than you're aware of. So, for example, the counting numbers are infinite. There is no end to them. The number of real numbers between zero and one is infinite, but in a different way (you can add more numbers between any two chosen numbers, without end).>Ok so what is it supposed to be? Just some abstract nonsenseIf you don;t understand it, it's nonsense, but math in general is a bunch of different systems used to think abstractly about things. That's things in a general sense, not limited to the physical world. Though, often, these abstractions have useful applications. For example, the math of efficiently packing 24-dimensional spheres has implications for self-correcting digital codecs. Infinite series are useful tools in all sorts of engineering because that abstract infinity can model something in a way that can spit out the answer you want.>>534081677Could you answer the questions, then? Here, I'll repeat them for you.>What do you think it means for a number to exist? Can you point to 2?
