Yeah it's 1 but that's not a right angle axis like inherently so...
infinity are classified by growth, as they are usually represented by summationsomething like cubic infinity is not the same as linear infinitythis is trivial
>>16930640Schizobabble.
inf+r=infr-inf=-infinf+inf=infinf*inf=infr/inf=0inf-inf undefinedinf/inf undefined1^inf undefined
>>16930651Because some functions approach infinity much faster than others as x->inf
>>16930651he is correct that it is trivial, and that the most common context in which such terms crop up are sequences and series[math]n-(1+n)[/math] can be treated as two divergent sequences whose difference converges to 1.
>>16930542Subtraction (\(\infty - \infty\)): This is indeterminate. Depending on the context (e.g., in calculus limits), it could be zero, a specific number, or infinity itself.
hyperreal numbers fix it
>>16930716as do surrealsneither give OP a unique answer
>>16930672you've left out "inf^0 undefined".
>>16930716>>16930724also, they don't matter. if OP does not specify that he wants stuff treated in some trans-mathematical shit, it's classical analysis by default. there are always autists who batge in and start explaining why 0.(9) does not equal 1 in some alternative analysis, but if OP used the classical notation, then classical analysis it is, and anyone bringing up how in fancy alternative universes this and that is not like in the real one is a raging autist with a need to show of but too clumsy to do it correctly.
>>16930728yup.
>>16930728>classical analysisPretty sure there's nothing classical about infinity - infinity. That's not even a number.
isn't infinity minus infinity basically what summation islike dude lmao hear me outyou are taking the series and summarizing it, which is removing the infinite expansion from it and representing it with an abstraction that contains the infinity, which we call a limitwhen you limit somethingyou are like, taking the "infinite"ness out of a sequence of numbers, and replacing it with a "finite"ness of some kind that allows for the entire series to be completely represented without requiring you to go through every single step of the index that summates it (as that would just be undergoing the reverse process, like "unzipping" an archived file you just compressed to save space)think of it as intentionally introducing "lossiness" to an otherwise "perfect" natural structure in order to make it measurable - like, we have to transform the sublime reality of direct immesurable experience into a non-real measurable abstraction that we can use for computation that approximates reality by way of universal symmetries, probability fields, and fundamental conservation lawsor some shizzle idk man
>>16930728god your retarded, idk wtf you even mean by "classical", but "classically" they went to great lengths to avoid infinities entirely, "classically" infinity is just a casual way of saying unbounded, and unbounded minus unbounded is a nonsensical statement
It's shrimple reallyUnbounded "minus" unbounded is just kind of a retarded way of saying "the unboundedness is removed", yes it is nonsensical but we can still assume what it means and still refute it even then, because it's trivial.Hence why infinity "minus" infinity is 1, not 0, and OP is an idiot, and this thread is just attention seeking bullshit that some LLM probably cooked up for a stoner.
>dude if I just make shit up then I can say whatever I want>>>/x/
yeh
>>16930752>>16930745he phrased it awkwardly but it is obvious he means analysis at a level that is usually taught to first semesters in STEM, and that some may have had in highschool. It hardly gets any more canonical than series, sequences and limits. Utterly basic shit.
>>16930672inf^0 = 1inf^x = inf (x > 0)inf^y = 0 (y < 0)x^inf = inf (x>1 | x<-1)y^inf = 0 (x<1 & x>-1)1^inf = undefinedinf/0 = infx/0 = inf (x > 0)y/0 = -inf (y < 0)0/0 = undefined
>>16930771Limits explicitly were created to avoid dealing with infinities. Did you stop learning math in 4th grade?
>>16930640isnt it growth are calculatives of infinite and linear suspension is suspended by almost faunit layer depictive before summation, the force of all potentially included is one of a context devirsity imprint gemiloxiour.. fucking sauce speak everywhere>current processes only>deez instinct to feel the mucus tho.
>>16930709but they don't as they're beyond the hex gate of few sigil? Irrational sameness squad df (df dTF!!) set she>>16930728but its societal kongfu templelitrick>>16930745Classically fucks god god god god..... "tf.. ">>16930750yeah like towards vaccuum systems istead of ripple (0..00...01{summation sentencings.. then prism.... conquests..... moving like 600Meters a second y'kw? Shyzeal af>>16930755>we cant face the deficit
>>16930829>Limits explicitly were created to avoid dealing with infinities.Yes and no. Would anyone actually ever write [math]\infty-\infty[/math]? Hell no. But, given that faggots never attach any definition to this practically meaningless on it own symbol it is only natural for people to go for something along those lines. I mean, for example, do you remember the proof for the Riemann rearrangement theorem? The intuition behind it is very straightforward, if a series converges but not absolutely, then it can be interpreted as two divergent series that are interspersed: One that approaches plus infinity and only has nonnegative terms, and one that has only negative terms and conversely approaches negative infinity. The remainder of the proof is then cleverly drawing from either pool to always steer the partial sum of the permuted series toward the desired limit. Didactically that is exactly the kind of context where you talk about "infinities", and the degree of sloppiness depends on your audience. Besides, a lot of the time people do write stuff like [math]\lim_{n\to\infty} a_n = \infty[/math] to suggest that the sequence grows without bound. Explicit "arithmetic" with the [math]\infty[/math] is avoided because is makes no sense in this context, but some intuition does sloppily suggest things adjacent to it. The "well yes, but actually no" meme actually encapsulates it sensibly. Did you follow all that?
>>16930952this add up for like roll for constitution but you're a variable?>tf is internal working get near & then 'wat' in history... lilrant Re-induldged UI called aura but really the copious "if god exists tf is who'stuff" over crunching as the would fuck us all working out by bare nearness of enabled co-spiriance.. if nothing strange perhaps pug patterns :P ... America rn is so wtf is that legit words world rn
>>16930980not sure if ESL, schizo, or LLMNot a single part of that was a grammatically correct sentence
>>16930709Meanwhile physicists be like>Yeah bro, just add another counter term, that'll sort that infinity out.
>>16931004what if a bunch tho.. that one!>Gotta have that body art
>>16931304fqn camera man stech
>>16930542You need to define WHICH infinity you are representing. Infinities come in many different sizes, but for some reason they all use the same symbol.
>>16930952>definition to this practically meaningless on it own symbolInfinity is an unbounded quantity greater than every real number.
>>16933495counter example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_line
>>16933994"extend the arithmetic on K to P1(K) by the formulas1/0=inf"toy model, since 1/0 can also be -inf
>>16930542Double the weight of the operators and see what inf works out to cap at
>>16934095In that model -inf = +inf, retardhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_at_infinity>toy modelone of the many use cases of the symbol. You can also forget about ordering when you require infinities related to the complex plane.
>>16934201>-inf = +inflol, definitely a toy
>>16934418>given simple example of where his understanding of inf as an established concept is needlessly constrained>dismisses it without any critical thoughtholy brainletism
>>16934418do you happen to object to -0 = +0 as well?
>>16930651(2 + 4 + 6 + ...) - (1 + 2 + 3 + ...) = (1 + 2 + 3 + ...)
>>16930542Infinity is not a number, subtraction is undefined. Or made up for whatever purpose at hand.
>>16935152Depends on the circumstances and context, but mostly no that is true.
