Is there a Mathematical Proof that : Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Logic and Philosophy of Math » Is there a Mathematical Proof that » Is there a Mathematical Proof that

Is there a Mathematical Proof that
I do not believe that it is true, so is there a proof?

Page: 1 2 3 4

Is there a Mathematical Proof that

longfun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/04/09 - 04:14 AM:	#21
James S Saint wrote: While considering how the universe came to be, I ran into a problem in mathematics involving infinities and zeroes. I have put together a means for correcting the problem, but before I get into that, I would like to ask; I do not believe that it is true, so is there a proof that "inf * 0 = 0"? You start from the premise that the universe came to be,which is only true from an internal observer point of view.
I'm Long and I'm playing the greatest game of all.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/04/09 - 05:40 AM:	#22
Caldwell wrote: As defined in a dictionary, infinity is "the limit that a function f is said to approach at x=a when for x close to a, f(x) is larger than preassigned number". Not all philosophers of math accept this as intelligible or natural. Can you actually understand this? "When for x close to a"?? Dictionaries are notoriously problematic for technical use. Knowing how one applies limits in standard texts, that definition, including "close to a" makes sense.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 11/04/09 - 05:44 AM:	#23
James S Saint wrote: Well let's see;<snip> Nothing you have quoted there is any help. I specifically asked what group you are using in your application of "*". That you compare your use to multiplication, as I suspected, indicates that this information is definitely required. You have not indicated that you use the string "infinity" to indicate a specific integer and, given what you were able to cut and paste above, you need to explain how the group you are using is analogous to the operation on integers that your definition references. Once you have given us the mathematical rules for your use of the string "infinity", then we can begin the analysis of whether or not the rest of us could or should ever use these rules in application.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 11/04/09 - 05:47 PM:	#24
If infinity is a number, then it makes as much sense to multiply infinity times 0 as it does to multiply infinity times 3. Obviously, you can't add 3 to infinity, so why do you think you can multiply it? If you can't multiply it, you can't divide it, or else you're left with absurd conclusion that infinity divided by 2 = infinity. The only time that x/2 = x is where x=0. The problem is more obvious where X=infinity and X+3 = infinity. In that case X+3 = X, which means that 3=0.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 11/05/09 - 08:48 AM:	#25
swstephe wrote: So, when you say, "inf0", you really mean, lim(x0), as x approaches infinity. You can see this on the graph, y = x0, that the limit would appear to be zero. One could look at it in the opposite sense, plot the graph of (infx) as X approaches 0. You can see this on the graph, y = inf*x, that the limit would appear to be infinity. Hanover wrote: If infinity is a number, then it makes as much sense to multiply infinity times 0 as it does to multiply infinity times 3. Obviously, you can't add 3 to infinity, so why do you think you can multiply it? If you can't multiply it, you can't divide it, or else you're left with absurd conclusion that infinity divided by 2 = infinity. The only time that x/2 = x is where x=0. The problem is more obvious where X=infinity and X+3 = infinity. In that case X+3 = X, which means that 3=0. Actually, yes, you can add 3 to infinity, the result is infinity. And infinity divided by 2 is indeed infinity (which is in fact not absurd at all).
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

Hanover
The Highest Rank Possible

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2008
Location: Atlanta

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 919

Posted 11/05/09 - 09:53 AM:	#26
reincarnated wrote: Actually, yes, you can add 3 to infinity, the result is infinity. And infinity divided by 2 is indeed infinity (which is in fact not absurd at all). The limit of x as x approaches infinity is the same for the equations x and x/2, namely infinity. I would not describe either as actually manipulating or calculating with the "number" infinity. The result of each equation can be graphed without there being an upper limit, so the result> > is therfore referenced as infinity. Infinity itself does not appear on any graph (thus my previous post asking where it would be posted on a graph). You would not write an equation as: X = Infinity. X/2 = X. If you actually wanted to calculate these limits, you would insert increasingly large numbers into the formulas and you could plot the outcome. At no point could you simply insert infinity into your calculator and figure out what the limit of x/2 is as x approaches infinity. So, no, you can't add 3 to infinity, nor can you divide it by 2.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who will not listen to reason." John Belushi, "Animal House" "I have opinions of my own --strong opinions-- but I don't always agree with them." G.W. Bush

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 11/06/09 - 01:33 AM:	#27
Kwalish Kid wrote: Dictionaries are notoriously problematic for technical use. Knowing how one applies limits in standard texts, that definition, including "close to a" makes sense. er, I didn't mean the sentence, I mean, can you actually understand a reality where infinity is used? Natural mathematics ground their proofs, solutions, formulas, and numbers in something that has time and space. "Infinity" is certainly not part of this. To further this discussion, we can look at Descartes's coordinates, you know, the grid? The Cartesian mathematics, the x and y coordinates, exemplifies this. (He came up with this, no?) Edited by Caldwell on 11/06/09 - 02:14 AM

atightropewalker
On par with an amoeba.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 127

Posted 11/06/09 - 04:21 AM:	#28
As I see it infinity and zero are intrinsically linked and so cannot be multiplied. If a function approaches 0 and you apply it over infinity you get f=0. If a function approaches o and you apply it over 0 you get f=infinity (not including steps etc.). If a function approaches infinity and you apply it over 0 you get f=0. Approaches infinity and apply it over infinity, f=0. So I can only assume that infinity corresponds to everything and 0 to nothing and if you have everything*nothing you get a whole lot of paradox.
"An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it." - Ludwig Wittgenstein 'It is the duty of the human understanding to understand that there are things which it cannot understand...' - Søren Kierkegaard

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 11/06/09 - 07:27 AM:	#29
Hanover wrote: Infinity itself does not appear on any graph Sure it does. You are familiar with logarithmic axes I assume? In this case, each unit of linear displacement on the axis represents an order of magnitude increase in value. To create an axis which shows infinity, simply define the value 1 as being 1 unit displaced from the origin, the value 2 as being 1/2 unit further on from the value 1, the value 3 as being 1/4 units further on from the value 2, the value 4 as being 1/8 units further on from the value 3..... the value n as being 1/((n-1)^2 units further on from the value (n-1).... and so on. The value infinity will then be found exactly 2 units from the origin. Hanover wrote: So, no, you can't add 3 to infinity, nor can you divide it by 2. Simply plot it on the above graph. I think you'll find the answer in both cases is infinity.
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

magpies
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 06, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 41

Posted 11/06/09 - 07:41 PM:	#30
I think the point hes trying to make and I agree with it... If infinity can have 3 added to it then it was not infinity in the first place. I put up a red flag when I see infinity in math because nobody really understands infinity enough to use it in math imo. Zero is also a number I don't want to see in an equation.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.