# The universe?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by god-of-course, Sep 20, 2003.

1. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
MacM:

I wrote: f/0 = i

It seems that if we multiply both sides by 0 we get: f = i &times; 0

That would be true and valid, but the question is: <b>which</b> f is the answer to i &times; 0? The original equation worked for any finite number, so the second equation must as well.

That is why the expression i &times; 0 is indeterminate - it's answer could conceivably be any finite number.

3. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello Malikiri

Because you say so? That's my second favorite type of proof - proof by assertion.

That sort of proof was learnt and learnt well from JR. It is probably the best, not second best. Something is right because you say it is right.

A while ago leeaus outlined the fundamental differences of view.

We are not likely to get anywhere further.

The mathematical point of view is infinite distance exists in all directions with beginnings at all points of space. Proof of this involves numbers and sleight of hand logic that says the finite must be infinite. The proof was dependent on a must conclude scenario. The absoluteness of the proof was never given so it naturally argued with those who the same conclusion could not be forced upon.

The geometric point of view is infinite distance, if it exists, would encompass all distance. This more rigid definition of what infinite distance would be denies the idea of infinite distance having a beginning.

Line: ...An infinite line passing through points A and B

During the thread Phoenix 2634 was so moved to supply some definitions. That was the definition of an infinite line. The definition sided with the geometric point of view, not the mathematical one. Passing through is not a beginning.

So the world could be divided into two groups at least.

Those content with infinite distance having a beginning.

And those not so content.

Have you any ideas of how such can be taken further here?

There has been nothing on this thread to sway logic in favour of infinite distance having a beginning. A beginning expressly says that the distance being considered does not encompass all distance.

Presume your reference to LSD is to drugs. No advice is being given to take drugs to understand that 2,3,4,5… belong within 1.

What you call a half fits twice within 1. That is where your two comes from. What you call 1/3 fits 3 times within 1 etc. Get the picture. What you call infinity is the end of the series.

Pretty straight forward really. Just gives order to your mathematics.
When you simply allow 2 to follow 1 you have no ordered explanation of where the 2 has come from have you. It just suddenly appears.

And, of course, speaking of 2, the world is divided into two groups. Those who say infinite distance would encompass all distance if it exists. And those who blindly say infinite distance has a beginning.

Regards
leeaus

5. ### malkiriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
198
Maybe. My favorite type of proof is proof by example.

I agree, as I'm sure many others do, but probably not for the same reason you think so.

It has, you just haven't recognized it.

That definition is indeed correct, but that's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing over whether a geometric ray is infinite. Our terminology has been muddled, but whatever name you give the concept, his definition of a set of points with only one at infinity is the concept we've been arguing over. You seem eager to agree with his definitions, which are correct.

Again, nothing that you've recognized. Plenty of valid points have been raised which you've attempted to shoot down with either erroneous or irrelavent information. The point you're failing to grasp is that infinity is not defined as being everything.

When you simply allow 1/3 to follow 1/2, you have no ordered explanation of where the 1/3 has come from, have you?

7. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello Malikri
Agreed. The proof kind of proof is the best kind proof. You missed the irony, sarcasm, satire and dedicated wit within the remark about assertion being the best kind. You miss a lot of things.

Ray: in geometry a ray is usually taken to be a half infinite line with one of the two points A and B taken to be at infinity.

This definition allows for the fact that a ray does not encompass all distance. The infinity referred to is what is suspected to follow finite numbers. It requires the length of a ray to be measured in units of distance. The point taken to be at infinity is at what is believed to be beyond finite units. The half infinite line pointedly allows for the fact that a ray is not of infinite length.

The point you're failing to grasp is that infinity is not defined as being everything.

Infinity: An unbounded quantity greater than every real number...

Unbounded quantity not everything. Bit semantic, but when it comes to length, if infinite length is not all length what is it?

When you simply allow 1/3 to follow 1/2, you have no ordered explanation of where the 1/3 has come from, have you?

Not really here to fully details things, Malikiri. The question is whether the origin of an arithmetical progression is within 1 or beyond 1.

But what you ask is an odd even thing. As it goes 1/2, ¼,1/4 as the sum of 1 with three unequal numbers. Next is ¼, ¼,¼, ¼,. Now there is four equal numbers of which 3 is one and so on.

Always you will find numbers are an imperfect act. There is always movement towards true values. The true values never exist though.

Incidentally no one has ventured an answer to the asked question about whether infinity is odd or even. It is presumed no-one knows.

Regards
leeaus

8. ### malkiriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
198
Er...that was a joke. "Proof by example" is not a proof at all...showing you a pink elephant doesn't prove that all elephants are pink.

So even though the "point at infinity" is beyond finite units, the ray doesn't have infinite length?

Well, if you're not here to detail the basis of your mathematical system, then why should anyone be bothered to do the same for you?

I declare 2 to be the only true number. As it goes, 1/1, 1/2, 1/2 as the sum of 2 with three unequal numbers. Next is 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, 1/2... Now there are four equal numbers of which 3 is one and so on.

It's a nonsensical question. Is infinity a real number or an integer? Infinity is not a number, therefore you can't describe it by 'odd' or 'even.'

9. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
<i>Incidentally no one has ventured an answer to the asked question about whether infinity is odd or even. It is presumed no-one knows.</i>

An even number is divisible by 2, and infinity/2 = infinity
An odd number, when divided by 2, leaves a remainder of 1, and infinity/2 = infinity + 1.

Hence, infinity is both odd and even, but only if you assume it is an integer to start with. That assumption is not really valid, so it is probably fair to say that infinity is neither odd nor even.

10. ### AndersHermanssonRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
334
leeaus how do you account for the irrational numbers? not every number is "within 1" or what you're saying

11. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello Malikri

A ray has a beginning. Therefore it is not of infinite length.

An infinite length that has a beginning is a presumption of a length longer than 1 unit.

Do you have a problem with that.

A confusion grows as the leeaus approach to infinity is always “if infinity did exist”. Many times you seem approach your replies with a leeaus acceptance of the existence of infinity. If you say for function y = 1/x as x approaches zero y approaches infinity, that’s fine.

But if zero is not a number but rather the sum of positive and negative numbers, approaches is the key word in the cases of both infinity and zero. An approach to infinity is always going to be in the realm of the finite.

Doesn’t that make perfect sense to you. Only the finite exists. Neither zero or the infinite do. All any one knows anything about is the finite. No-one has ever observed or proved the existence of zero or anything infinite. The universe is the finite of the structure of mathematics. That is why it is here. Seems so logical from here.

Your assumption of two as a base number is self contradictory isn’t it. Haven’t you used 2 numbers to represent one. Therefore you are saying there are two base numbers.

It is not exactly philosophy to set 1 aside as number different from all the rest is it? Pretty much standard arithmetical reasoning.

What is the last number before infinity then. Is that odd or even. How does the infinite transcend the finite is what is being got at. Where does the finite end. At odd or even.

Regards

leeaus

12. ### malkiriRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
198
Yes, you've said this plenty times before. Once more doesn't make it true.

That's what this thread is all about now, isn't it? It appears everyone but you has a problem with that.

Pick one. Either stop arguing about the characteristics of infinity if you believe it doesn't exist, or stop pretending to sit on the fence. We can go back to arguing about whether it exists if you so choose. One way or the other, I'm calling on you to pick one and stick with it, and I plan on holding you accountable to that choice in the future.

An approach to the number 1 will always be in the realm of numbers less than 1. That doesn't mean the number 1 doesn't exist.
We're not arguing about whether anything physically infinite exists. We're arguing about whether the concept of infinity exists, particularly as a useful concept in the realm of mathematics.

All I did was reproduce your representation. Haven't you used 2 numbers to represent one?

I'm unconvinced by your 'standard arithmetical reasoning.'

There is no "last number before infinity." If there was such a number, there would be a value that's 2 greater than that, and thus greater than infinity. Infinity is by definition greater than all numbers. It again makes no sense to ask this sort of question.[/b][/quote]

Don't worry.

13. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello JR

Neither odd nor even means an irrational number does it not. Something for you to think about.

Regards

leeaus

Last edited: Oct 19, 2003
14. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello Andershermasson

Take the way you see things (probably)

0 - finite numbers – infinity

Cast all that as number 1 you now pretty much have what is what is being said. (remembering that 0 and infinity are only approached.)

Regards
leeaus

Last edited: Oct 19, 2003
15. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello Malikiri

Not sure how to attend to your post. It is not very constructive.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

JR concludes all JR posts with this quote.

When it comes to infinity, guess leeaus is the epitome of this quote.

The concept of infinity exists in terms of numbers if you allow that a human being gets tired of counting. Otherwise forget it. To an auto counter, the finite never ends.

A Malikiri comparison of zero and one is unqualified. An approach to zero is an approach to a number that never exists.

An approach to one is an approach to a number that exists.

Have used two numbers to represent one. Began with one though. Did not begin with two. If your two is one by another name, we agree.

There is no "last number before infinity." If there was such a number, there would be a value that's 2 greater than that, and thus greater than infinity. Infinity is by definition greater than all numbers. It again makes no sense to ask this sort of question.

If you analyze this with integrity, 1 is the last number before infinity. You are not addressing the question of where the finite gives way to the infinite.

Regards
Leeaus

16. ### CrispGone 4everRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,339
"The axioms stand.

What axioms ? You mean those sentences you wrote down ? Yeah sure, they stand. The following axioms also still stand:

"All elephants have four legs".
"The moon more or less orbits the earth".
"All elephants, except exceptions, are pink".

Just because you put it in words doesn't mean that it is true, or that it is useful.

"If you can’t understand that 1 is the only number yet, it is unlikely that this thread will be your enabler."

Are you saying that you can generate every other real number from just the number one ? Yes ? So what ? We all know that.

"You haven’t even proved that 1 + 1 = 2"

Do you really want me to even care to look that up for you ? You know, it doesn't hurt to do some effort yourself from time to time.

"Put some work into your personality and your spelling of concentrate. Reinvent hot water is not analogous with what was being done. A suspected proof of infinite distance was supplied. The supplier was not prepared to answer questions about it. That was not analogous with a reinvention of hot water from this side."

Taking things out of context, insulting people who you actually should be listening to, and generally pissing people of seems to be a strong side of yours.

"The bottom line is you don’t know the reason of the universe but leeaus would be able to explain that finite space is the reason. That is where things end. "

Aha, so the reason why we are all here, the ultimate meaning of life, the key to the grand unification of all fundamental forces, the magical word towards the achivement of world peace, fame, fortune, respect and happiness for all over the world is .... "finite space".

Great. You sure got it leeaus. Glad for you.

Bye!

Crisp

[not to be seen in this thread again]

17. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello Crisp

“finite space” is two words.

(the intention was not to insult you. However you were unappreciative about the fact that this thread has aspired to contain proof of the existence of infinite length. That aspiration is not achieved by interpretations of mathematics by leeaus being shown to be right or wrong as you would have. The proof has to stand or fall on its own. The fact that you took umbrage about a rejection of hot water being reinvented reflected on the proof not making the grade. By and large you should notice that leeaus is constructive in intent. Over on a potential energy thread it is noticed that you were employing hyperbole to make a point when you were further questioned. Your rational about why 1 + 1 = 2 would seem to have been attended to with subterfuge.)

Regards leeaus

18. ### ProCopValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,258
Infinity can exist

Time ago I developed a model in which the "real" does not exist (or exists only in a numerical form):

There exist only two numbers 1 and 0. These can form strings which under some circumstances can model an <b>infinite</b> universe (such as ours).

Sum up of the model:

1) First I must dispose of time as co-existing element of space. Imagine a film box in which a role of film is rolled in. The movie which it contains is made from the beginning to the end and is now printed in plastic and will not change. You cannot see it all at once – but if you follow the tape with a small light (your brain?) all the way through you will experience the movie. You need time for that experience, but the movie itself doesn’t need time. It is ready and done.
2) Imagine a box of some size which is densly filled with miniscule points.They are structured similarly as the cells of my computer screen but they have the third dimension of depth. The box is now a (3d) structured quantity of points. These points are capable of taking on different qualities similarly to the computer screen cells which can take on different colors. Imagine the movie from the previous paragraph in 3D version.
3) Translate this image of 3D box to include the Universe.
4) Step yourself into this box en mingle with the points there. In such a way you wil became an actor in this movie. Your body has translated itself into points, and your mind watches (the movie) the Universe from the inside: your are the part of its structure which is made from the points.
5) Points can take on any form possible (in the way the mind experiences them).
6) The structure of points contains all possibilities of what CAN happen. Points are the vehicle for these happenings and mind experience these happennings.
7) Imagine the movie is a DvD (not analog but digital). You actulaly don`t need the points for your world to happen. There is a sense giving sequence of two numbers: 0 and 1 (encoding a POSSIBLE world like a DvD movie). Such sequence of numbers (a numerical string) can exist without space and time. There is then a THEORETICAL universe to be experienced as real (in a digital to analoog proces).
8) Mind reads the strings of numbers.
9) Mind is a string too. (String reads string)
10) Strings <b> can</b> be of infinite lenth. Infinity can exist!

19. ### cephas1012Registered Senior Member

Messages:
161
OMG, i cant believe this thread is still going. LoL!

Persistent crackpots.

20. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
leeaus:

Is the number 1.7 odd or even? Is it rational or irrational? Is it finite or infinite?

Do you even know what those terms mean?

21. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello JR

1.7 is rational and finite. Had a passing thought when your thread was read that’s all. The thought was entertained, not accepted in accordance with your constant associate, earth centred universe, Mr. Aristotle.

(A)How does the infinite transcend the finite in your opinion.

With respect of this thread, you seemingly believe infinite distance begins at every point of space.

(B)Without expecting you to speak for all mathematicians, is this predominantly what mathematicians believe in your opinion.

This is not accepted on the grounds that an infinite distance with a beginning does not encompass all distance. It leaves out the distance before the beginning.

Am happy to be on the infinite distance can’t have a beginning side of things. Just wonder if your side of things is representative.

(C) Also, just to make sure there is not a misunderstanding, in your proposed proof, is a value of x distance.

(D)e is said to be a real number. Was always assuming you meant e was a segment of L by this. Is this so. Otherwise the proof didn’t mean anything at all. Is that right.

Just trying to put together exactly where the mind of the mathematician is at.

An irrational number occurs when you divide an integer by another integer and the answer keeps on going.

A rational number occurs when an integer is divided by an integer and the answer comes to a halt.

Allowing that there is such things as exact numbers, odd numbers leave 1 left over when you divide by 2 (except in the case of 1, the base number)

Even numbers don’t leave any over when you divide by 2.

All numbers are finite. There is no such thing as infinity.

Regards
leeaus

22. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,445
leeaus:

<i>(A)How does the infinite transcend the finite in your opinion.</i>

Infinity = an unbounded quantity greater than every real number.

<i>With respect of this thread, you seemingly believe infinite distance begins at every point of space.</i>

I've hardly mentioned space in this thread. I've been talking about mathematics. You really need to get a grip on maths before you can start on physics.

<i>(B)Without expecting you to speak for all mathematicians, is this predominantly what mathematicians believe in your opinion.</i>

Mathematicians don't worry about space. They worry about what can be derived from certain sets of assumptions. It's the physicists who worry about the physical nature of space.

<i>This is not accepted on the grounds that an infinite distance with a beginning does not encompass all distance. It leaves out the distance before the beginning.</i>

Nobody ever said infinite distance must encompass all distance - except you. There are many examples of infinity which do not encompass all of whatever it is you are talking about.

<i>Am happy to be on the infinite distance can’t have a beginning side of things. Just wonder if your side of things is representative.</i>

My mathematics is standard, accepted by all qualified mathematicians I know of.

<i>(C) Also, just to make sure there is not a misunderstanding, in your proposed proof, is a value of x distance.</i>

No. x is a coordinate. The difference between two coordinates gives a distance.

<i>(D) e is said to be a real number. Was always assuming you meant e was a segment of L by this. Is this so.</i>

L is a distance. e is also a distance. Neither are lines, so e is not a segment of anything.

<i>An irrational number occurs when you divide an integer by another integer and the answer keeps on going.</i>

No. 1 divided by 3 gives an infinite decimal expansion (0.3333...), but 1/3 is a rational number. A rational number is one which can be written as the ratio of two integers.

<i>All numbers are finite. There is no such thing as infinity.</i>

Wrong. Search for "transfinite numbers" on the web.

23. ### leeausRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
265
Hello JR

e is a distance shorter than L. Good

All values of x does not refer to distance. All values of x refers to all co ordinates including and beyond zero. OK

As per all your replies to MacM, you still say a quantity of real numbers is distance. Fair enough. You are incomprehensible but consistent.

You did state infinite distance extends from all points of three dimensional compass on this thread.

Got a little more understanding of where the mind of the mathematician is. The mathematics or physics attitude was not known before.

If you want to call 1/3 an irrational number that is ok. So it repeats its self. No big deal.

Also there has been more than leeaus state that infinite distance would encompass all distance on this thread. JR agreed with this on page 2, later said it was regretfully done on a basis to see where it would go. What the JR reckoning of all distance at that early stage remains mysterious.

Transfinite numbers are finite numbers. Show otherwise if you want.
All finished.

Thankyou
leeaus