Consider an infinite plain, from a to b, without recourse or stop, we can say according to phsyical math as: ∞=[∞-(-∞)]² Which has the coordinates: (-∞,∞) x (-∞,∞) Which then suggests it must have an infinite plain - by simplifying ∞=[∞-(-∞)]² we get; ∞=(2∞)² And so ∞=4∞² Which must give since according to prove ∞=[∞-(-∞)]² b ∫ =f(t) dt=∞ a Easily states that f(t) does not have a boundary Ω between a and b, so it must imply some infinite range. We should now consider a second infinite plane, which would allow us to calculate one infinite plain which is incoming, and a second which is outgoing. We could express this as: x<z<z x>y>z (If we simply replace the x and z coordinates here with infinities, we find one infinity ascending in the positive direction, we find another descending in the opposite. Thus instead of just saying, (1) ∞→-∞, we also have (2) -∞→∞, and so now I suppose each plain, call (1) the conjugate of plain (2). This assigns each plain a special property which equally relates the two. If plain (1) acts as a boundary to plain (2) upon mathematical cobjugation, we actually find the following: b ∫ =f(t) dt=∞ a and -b ∫ =f(t) dt=-∞ -a So that the boundary of |∞|² given as the absolute square of the infinities in question, which is analogous to -∞•∞ where one can consider some renormalization, since being conjugates, one could have the value 1. The only problem one would consider here, is that the mathematical expression -∞•∞ yields normally undefined, because -∞•∞ should yield simply -∞. But perhaps infinite qualities (but only certain kinds as acting like conjugates of each other), could break the mathematical dogma? My thoughts remind me of Cantors proof of infinities showing that one infinity can be larger than another infinity which initially suggests some countable difference between the two elements. If two infinities as quickly shown: Lim of (n →∞)^n =∞ And Lim of (n →∞)^n² =∞ (1) Where Lim of n →∞^n² =∞ implies a greater infinity than Lim of n →∞^n =∞, then we may be able to have two infinities, one moving in the positive direction and the other moving in the negative direction to both have values which together yield a single finite value may be possible. It could help maybe by mathematical notation that ∞=(a+bi) and ∞=(a-bi) (2), where the two of them multipled would yield some real positive answer. (1)- This is like saying that: (∞∑ of n=1)^n≠(∞∑ of n=1)^n² But in the end, this is just one way to show his infinities to not equal the same value, but its not the tradiational way, i know, i just require some descretion. (1) - Whilst infinities cannot be respresented as (x+yi), there must be some way to treat one infinity as a conjugate to another, unless i am specifically missing a rule of math? My Question I have studied the fallacies of mathematics for a few years now, and I always here you cannot subtract an infinity from another, unless you do not define one not being a little larger than the other in some arbitrary way, likewise, you can’t divide them unless you specify the qualities, as Cantor once proved. So now I ask, why can one not define a real finite value, unless this value was calculated by multiplying two infinities acting as conjugates of each other, where there is some boundary upon contact, much like how one might envision the infinite wave function collapsing upon some measurement? So in another set of words, why can’t we define two infinities by multiplication if they have properties which can cancel, but not maybe completely, their own internal properties?
I'm pretty sure the real question should be why chase something that serves no purpose. Most mathematicians I'm pretty sure only really delve into mathematics that has a reason for an outcome, why juggle numbers or theory in mathematics if the outcome is nothing more than a brain fart that leads to nothing more than an intellectual dead end? I guess I'm saying, if you want to apply mathematics, perhaps you should find a better application which is both more feasible and has feasible returns than chasing pipedreams.
I guess i am saying then, give me a mathematical proof where one infinity cannot act as a conjugate with another? If that is a mathematical fart, then please explain fumes.
This is a genuine question. We work with infinities in many area's. I would like to know of a proof which disproves an infinity being a conjugate of another. Thanks.
In fact, let me rephrase this: Can two conjuagate infinities yield a good value, despite what stryder said, if it could, it would yield something to talk about. I have already shown, according to physics, whether two things have infinite values they can still yield a positive answer, given as: ∫_Ω |Ψ|²=1
A finite value created, being the same real finite value created from two conjugated infinites, which my question asks, why can we not have two infinities that are conjugates?
Infinity is not a number as it's non-achievable. You can't add one to infinity and expect a different outcome since Infinity is Infinity. That's the main reason why exploring it with some mathematic theory really isn't necessary. If you were to look at it from a programming term, it would be like trying to weigh up to infinite loops, while they can be started at different times they will continually change in value, so you are never limited by a "Ceiling", pretty much making the mathematics you are attempting to imply absurd.
Well, the reason i stated this was simple. We deal with renormalizing infinities in renormalization theory all the time. Then Cantor showed there was something countable between one infinity and another, if the other was shown to be greater, even though we may not know its values. I imagine two infinities containing just the right information to renormalize upon multiplication, if both acted like conjugates. My question was simple: Why can't we treat infinities like conjugates?
No, we don't. Have you ever preformed a calculation where you actually have to renormalize something?
Perhaps it's just that it's early in the morning and I'm not awake enough but the equation in that post of gluons has made an alarm bell go off. Perhaps I'm just cynical and suspicious but given the completely mathematically, ridiculous nature of the original post of gluons and the fact the use of 'Omega' to represent the domain over which a normalisation integration is performed, along with some other posts of gluons over in the maths and physics forum, I strongly suspect gluon to be Reiku. Reiku's inability to understand the equations he copies and pastes from other places or people usually leads to him tripping up when trying to BS his way through mathematics.
