04 Jul '16 13:58>
Originally posted by humyShould be
∀x ∈ ℝ{≠L}
∀x ∈ ℝ{f(x)≠L}
as for whether it works, I need to give it some thought, but I think it does. I still don't like the 2 and am trying to think of a way to eliminate it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadArr yes. That's what I really meant. So that should be;
Should be
∀x ∈ ℝ{f(x)≠L}
Originally posted by humyI noticed the thread a little while ago and was thinking about this point. I can provide good justification for the answer yes and I can provide good justification for the answer no. Empirically, there is no way of justifying either answer. It's like asking what is on the other side of an event horizon - we can only make statements based on our theories. General Relativity allows space-times with both closed and open global topologies. So, either answer is possible. If we add the current lambda-CDM model and recent observation we have an expanding universe and the topology should be open. If lambda-CDM correctly describes nature, or at least describes nature well enough, then the universe has infinite extent and this implies that there can be objects arbitrarily distant from one another.
I know the standard theory is that the universe is finite in size but unbounded but, just suppose you were told from a reliable source that the universe is infinite and unbounded and space is infinite in all directions.
Now, does it make any sense to say there might exist, say, a planet, that is literally an infinite distance from your current location? ...
Originally posted by DeepThoughtinteresting. And I am kind of glad I am not the only scientifically minded person here not completely sure of the answer.
I noticed the thread a little while ago and was thinking about this point. I can provide good justification for the answer yes and I can provide good justification for the answer no. Empirically, there is no way of justifying either answer. It's like asking what is on the other side of an event horizon - we can only make statements based on our theori ...[text shortened]... So certainly in that theory there are objects between which light has an infinite travel time.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhat do you mean by 'mathematical philosophy'? I see it as mathematical fact.
At this point we're into the realms of mathematical philosophy.
Originally posted by humyI believe I have just worked out how to make that even better"!
If I am not mistaken, I have come up with a much better formula and this one works for defining the limit L, as x tends to infinity, for any function providing L is real thus finite;
lim {x→∞} f(x) = L ∧ L ∈ ℝ
⇒
∀x ∈ ℝ{>0} :
( ∃j ∈ ℝ : |f(j) − L| ≤ x )
∧
( ∃y ∈ ℝ : ∀z ∈ ℝ{>y} : |f(z) − L| ≤ |f(x) − L| )
Originally posted by humyUnless I am mistaken, I have now worked out the answer to that question is 'no'.
perhaps a better question is does either
2*∞ = ∞ is true
or
2*∞ > ∞ is false
make total sense in formal logic?
Originally posted by humyAs I have said twice already, it depends on what you mean by ∞. There are certainly definitions under which the expressions may make sense. But, if you are taking ∞ to be a real number, as you apparently are, then yes, they don't make sense because there is no real number that accurately represents a count of all the integers.
Is this a valid argument?
And does it settle this issue once and for all i.e. proves ∞ = ∞ etc makes no sense?
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I am not.
[b But, if you are taking ∞ to be a real number, as you apparently are, ...[/b]
As I have said twice already, it depends on what you mean by ∞. There are certainly definitions under which the expressions may make sense.
This is similar to the fact that
1+2+3+4+... = -1/12
Originally posted by humyI think you are:
No, I am not.
So, because every element in A can be mapped to every element in B without any being left over, that would appear to give credence to there being an equal number of numbers in both sets and that to say ∞ = ∞ makes sense.
Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are:So, because every element in A can be mapped to every element in B without any being left over, that would appear to give credence to there being an equal number of numbers in both sets and that to say ∞ = ∞ makes sense.
What does 'number' mean in the above?
[b]No, it isn't a fact. We already covered this in another t ...[text shortened]... Also to claim something is wrong whatever the definition of its constituent parts is ridiculous.
What does 'number' mean in the above?
to claim something is wrong whatever the definition of its constituent parts is ridiculous.
Originally posted by humySo this would make sense?:
Either a real number or infinity. The operative word is 'or'.
Originally posted by humyactually, I take that back. I mean " an infinity number " by 'number' there. I am aware that conventional maths terminology says 'infinity' is not a 'number' but don't know how to say it without either implying infinity is a real number or implying there exists infinity, which is a concept I am unsure of.
What does 'number' mean in the above?
in this narrow context only, either a real number or infinity. The operative word is 'or'.