Is infinity more than 6000?

[EternalOptimist]

It prevents mathematics from falling apart at the edges. Otherwise, no, not really.

if we had an infinite number of monkeys typing away - they would come up with a Shakespeare play

but

if we had a finite number of monkeys typing away - would they come up with a Shakespeare play ?


is this what you meant by stopping maths falling apart at the edges ?

[bogeyman]

if we had an infinite number of monkeys typing away - they would come up with a Shakespeare play

but

if we had a finite number of monkeys typing away - would they come up with a Shakespeare play ?


is this what you meant by stopping maths falling apart at the edges ?

Well, no that's not really what I meant but I suppose it's as good a point as any.

Infinities only work in the realm of the 'gedankenexperiment' (thought experiment).

The monkeys are a 'gedankenexperiment'. If you have enough monkeys and enough time, the little buggers would churn out Shakespeare's plays, sonnets, personal letters and shopping lists over and over again.

Of course in reality it couldn't happen. We have neither infinite time, infinate (and immortal) monkeys, nor infinite typewriter ribbons and paper come to that.

The experiment can exist in our imagination only - like infinity does.

[EternalOptimist]

Well, no that's not really what I meant but I suppose it's as good a point as any.

Infinities only work in the realm of the 'gedankenexperiment' (thought experiment).

The monkeys are a 'gedankenexperiment' experiment. If you have enough monkeys and enough time, the little buggers would churn out Shakespeare's plays, sonnets, personal letters and shopping lists over and over again.

Of course in reality it couldn't happen. We have neither infinite time, infinate (and immortal) monkeys, nor infinite typewriter ribbons and paper come to that.

The experiment can exist in our imagination only - like infinity does.

so Threaded is right, it's semantics for egg-heads ?

[bogeyman]

so Threaded is right, it's semantics for egg-heads ?

I suppose so, really.

[EternalOptimist]

I suppose so, really.

oh. thats sad, in a way

[bogeyman]

oh. thats sad, in a way

Well actually, you don't need an infinite number of monkeys, just a sufficient number of them, and sufficient time.

It's all a matter of probabilities.

If we hang around this board long enough, someone is bound to write Twelfth Night.

[sasguru]

Infinite series (Taylors and Maclaurins) are very useful from a practical point of view - its how a computer can work out some transcendental functions, so no Threaded is wrong actually (but no surprise there).

[bogeyman]

Infinite series (Taylors and Maclaurins) are very useful from a practical point of view - its how a computer can work out some transcendental functions, so no Threaded is wrong actually (but no surprise there).

Oh yes, conceptual infinities can be part of many practical applications. But they are still conceptual rather than actual.

I still don't think there are really 'infinite' amounts of anything in the physical universe (except possibly taxpayers' money).

[sasguru]

Oh yes, conceptual infinities can be part of many practical applications. But they are still conceptual rather than actual.

.

Hmmm not sure I agree. If the universe is finite - what's on the "other side" - where it ends?

[EternalOptimist]

Hmmm not sure I agree. If the universe is finite - what's on the "other side" - where it ends?

well thats another concept - nothing