

Thread Tools  Search this Thread  Display Modes 
11022012, 01:41 PM  #1 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,791

could the numbering system be a loop?
+ infinity becomes  infinity

pushing_wins 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by pushing_wins 
11022012, 01:55 PM  #2 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 34,400

No.........................

11032012, 12:37 PM  #3 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,303

It could, if you are in the projective plane .

11032012, 01:01 PM  #4 
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
Posts: 10,771

Conversely, if I lose enough money at the blackjack tables I will eventually become very rich?
__________________
If u have one foot stuck in yesterday & one foot stuck in tomorrow, u are peeing on today. 
SystemicAnomaly 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by SystemicAnomaly 
11032012, 03:02 PM  #5 
Rookie
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 308

It will be on 12/21/12, when we move into a new dimension where a continuous loop will prove useful to mathematicians, so they can understand our new enlightenment.
On a serious note, no, it cannot form a loop, because a negative number cannot equal a positive number. Wait seriously?! I am going to go break Vegas now! I will lend you my private yacht during the winters for coming up with the idea 
11032012, 06:23 PM  #6 
Rookie

No... The easiest example off the top of my head is the following: the limit of e^x as x→∞ = ∞. The limit of e^x as x→∞ = 0. If +∞ = ∞, then the two limits would be equal, and no one is arguing the possibility of 0 = ∞.
If you then want to ask if 0 does indeed equal infinity, we could just use a similar argument: the the limit of e^x as x→0 = 1. By definition, 1 (a finite number) cannot equal infinity.
__________________
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do.  Bertrand Russell 
Squall Leonheart 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Squall Leonheart 
11032012, 07:06 PM  #7 
SemiPro
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 570


sapient007 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by sapient007 
11042012, 08:18 PM  #8  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,791

Quote:


pushing_wins 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by pushing_wins 
11052012, 01:57 AM  #9 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,898

The real question is, is infinity really the largest number.
For example if we call infinity  omega, then omega + 1 is bigger than omega, but still infinitely large. If we keep going we can get omega + omega = 2omega. Continuing we get to omega^omega, but then omega^omega+1>omega^omega. If we keep going, we can get omega^omega^omega...  omega times. Then if we take that number +1, we get something bigger still, and start all over again. Meaning there are infinitely many, infinitely large numbers. By this definition omegaomega=0 (I think). 
11052012, 04:04 AM  #10 
Talk Tennis Guru
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: the old old forum
Posts: 26,940

After a while, you get a numeric overflow and start at zero again. So, yes.
__________________
"He is much like Federer, only slightly heavier."  StringerTom on suresh. "He is much like suresh, only slightly lighter"  vanioman on Federer. 
11052012, 05:35 AM  #11  
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 34,400

Quote:


11052012, 05:36 AM  #12 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 34,400


11062012, 10:26 AM  #13 
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,030

You need to define "infinity" first, which could mean a lot of things.

11062012, 10:39 AM  #14 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 34,400


11062012, 10:40 AM  #15 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 34,400

Can anyone prove that i is not a real number? I can.

11062012, 10:47 AM  #16 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: May 2012
Location: S. FL/Maine
Posts: 1,973

Public edu doesn't prepare me for TT math.... And I'm in Honors classes...
__________________
Making a comeback after ski season. Biomimetic Max 200G x8 and a "few" others... 
11062012, 10:51 AM  #17 
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,030

It has do with the fact that the complex numbers isn't an ordered field. The real numbers is either constructed from the rational numbers as dedekind cuts (look this up), or as equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of rational numbers. You make R into an ordered field by saying a < b for two dedekind cuts a and b, if a is contained in b. (dedekind cuts are sets).
If follows by the axioms of an ordered field, that for any nonzero element x in the field x^2 > 0. Now , since i^2 = 1, you see why it can't be a real number. Last edited by Claudius; 11062012 at 11:00 AM. 
11062012, 10:51 AM  #18 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 34,400

These are not topics usually taught in HS so don't worry

11062012, 10:54 AM  #19  
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 34,400

Quote:



Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  

