Reply to: Is infinity more than 6000?

[threaded]

I much prefer the 'good guess' to 'transfinite' theory.

If Physicists had followed Cantors continuum hypothesis we wouldn't have Quantum mechanics for example.

There again I follow the 'Copenhagen model' of quantum mechanics, (well I would ), and that the mathematics used is just a tool in the box that has been found to fit, rather than an actual 'good' description.

[NotAllThere]

Since transfinite calculus was invented, there's been division among mathematicians about whether it's a good way of doing things. There's a group who reject the notion of infinite for reasons given here already. Mathematically, it's a valid position.

In my mind though, it's a limiting position. (excuse the pun, for those with the wit to spot it). Mathematics isn't about - how is this applicable? How does this help us understanding the real world? It is a simply an observation and investigation about how certain rules (axioms) fit together, and consequences of those axioms. When physics comes across something new, they generally find that the maths has already been invented - this was the case for relativity, quantum mechanics.

Mathematics already has areas of severe "edge". The whole issue of computability. "Will the rules of arithmetic ever lead to contradiction." Probably not - but it is has been proved that you can't prove that arithmetic will never lead to a contradiction.

The concept of infinity does have important, real world, implications. For example - it is provable to say "You can't design an algorithm to check whether a program is bug free".

Infinity is a very useful concept when you need to consider "all". In the above example, "all" computer programs. It turns out that the number of programs that can be written is the same as the number of real numbers that can be written out. So it turns out that understanding that the cardinality of the real numbers is "bigger" than that of the integers has important, real world implications.

Infinites are used in quantum mechanical calculations. Without these, we wouldn't have computers, lasers,... any digital consumer electronics.

Hey - but don't let that stop you whiffling on a subject where you haven't even the bare bones of understanding. This is CuK

[threaded]

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

I don't think it is required at the 'edges' either. As there aren't any really. It's much like the statement in a theory 'it can be seen', I'm like, maybe not...

[TimberWolf]

Maybe we don't need any numbers bigger than 6000. Why would you need more than 6000 of 'anything', if anything is large enough?

Or just one of anything? The whole universe being just one particle that does the whole lot.

[swamp]

There is zero probability that infinity equals 6000. Although that doesn't mean it can't be true.

Maybe we don't need any numbers bigger than 6000. Why would you need more than 6000 of 'anything', if anything is large enough?

[TimberWolf]

I believe that a recent theoretical paper on infinity said it was equal to exactly 6000.

There is zero probability that infinity equals 6000. Although that doesn't mean it can't be true.

[_V_]

I believe that a recent theoretical paper on infinity said it was equal to exactly 6000.

[bogeyman]

I think for the last ten years, I have been reading your flowerbeds

Yes, the Observer is not the journalistic force that it was - and this is not entirely down to the employment of cats to fill the column inches.

[EternalOptimist]

I think they went wrong when they though of using monkeys.

Mice are pretty clever, but the practicalities of making small-enough typewriters knocked that idea on the head.

Cats could probably do it. My neighbour's cat used to write a column for the Observer when he wasn't crapping in my flowerbeds.

I think for the last ten years, I have been reading your flowerbeds

[bogeyman]

Some work has been done towards resolving this important question

The results may be found in Notes Towards the Complete Works of Shakespeare (PDF, 2.8MB)

I think they went wrong when they though of using monkeys.

Mice are pretty clever, but the practicalities of making small-enough typewriters knocked that idea on the head.

Cats could probably do it. My neighbour's cat used to write a column for the Observer when he wasn't crapping in my flowerbeds.

[EternalOptimist]

Some work has been done towards resolving this important question

The results may be found in Notes Towards the Complete Works of Shakespeare (PDF, 2.8MB)

well, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.

ok, according to your evidence
I can out-write a chimp and out-write a monkey
but I can also out-w ank a bonobo outright

[NickFitz]

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

Some work has been done towards resolving this important question

The results may be found in Notes Towards the Complete Works of Shakespeare (PDF, 2.8MB)

[bogeyman]

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

Nout, nothing, not a sausage, bugger all.

There is no 'other side'. The universe is a bubble. Outside the bubble there is neither space, nor time.

Of course, this could all be completely wrong, but that's more or less the current consensus, is it not?

[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

[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?