06022013, 05:11 PM  #21 
New User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14

I mean infinity...I can't spell

Baseline Winner 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Baseline Winner 
06022013, 05:13 PM  #22 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,544

I think it is more like saying that 1 is the largest number, which is not true. It's clear the conclusion is wrong, but all the ideas leading up to that conclusion seem true. So, is logic unreliable?

Steady Eddy 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Steady Eddy 
06022013, 05:24 PM  #23  
New User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14

Quote:
You cannot both say that L=L^2 and L^2/L=L simply because if L is the largest real number L^2 (which we should then treat as infinity^2)=L so therefore this step should read that L>=L 

Baseline Winner 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Baseline Winner 
06022013, 05:38 PM  #24  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,544

Quote:
If I postulate a "largest real number", then it must have the property of being greater than its own square. Mathematicians think such an assumption is nonsense. But in philosophy, this kind of assumption is made in the ontological argument for god. I'm surprised philosophers don't dismiss it as well. i.e. the ontological argument goes something like this. Imagine a most perfect being. Does this being exist? Yes, it must have the attribute of existence, otherwise we've not imagine the most perfect being. Hence, god exists. p.s. Seems the arguments flaw is the assumption that a largest real number exists. Because such a number would have to be bigger than it's own square. 

Steady Eddy 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Steady Eddy 
06022013, 05:39 PM  #25  
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 33,670

Quote:


06022013, 05:41 PM  #26 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 33,670


06022013, 05:51 PM  #27  
G.O.A.T.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,031

Quote:
It's math, that's what's wrong.
__________________
 Random Error Generator, Version 4.0  Master Moonballer 

Cindysphinx 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Cindysphinx 
06022013, 06:02 PM  #28 
Professional
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 959

The technological world we thrive in today is thanks to the scientists and engineers who use math everyday
__________________
"Has tennis really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?  Roger Federer"  Denis Istomin (3022 Enceladus Lunar Open) 
KineticChain 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by KineticChain 
06022013, 06:04 PM  #29 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 33,670

LeeD doesn't care about technology. He likes to play sports outdoors and be One with Nature.

06022013, 06:08 PM  #30  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,544

Quote:
Very true! 

Steady Eddy 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Steady Eddy 
06032013, 08:09 AM  #31 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 33,670

Eddy, I just realized that there seems to be no direct way to generate the next prime number, given the previous one, except through various "sieve" schemes which actually just list possible candidates and eliminate the composite ones. In other words, given 7, there seems to be no direct way to find that 11 is the next prime number.
Has it been proven to be impossible? Not easy to find the answer from Google. Such a simple problem and no known solution! 
06032013, 06:29 PM  #32  
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,544

Quote:


Steady Eddy 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Steady Eddy 
06032013, 07:40 PM  #33  
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 33,670

Quote:


06032013, 09:14 PM  #34 
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,544

There is a proof that it cannot be done. On page 38 it says, "...they produce values of Y divisible by p, contradicting the hypothesis. Hence, no such prime producing polynomial exists.

Steady Eddy 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by Steady Eddy 
06032013, 09:29 PM  #35 
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,028

Here's a mindblowing fact.
There are infinitely many natural numbers, and infinitely many real numbers, right? Well it turns out that the infinity of the real numbers is larger than the infinity of the natural numbers! To be mathematically precise, what this means is that there is no function from N > R that is bijective. In other words, no onetoone correspondence. But get this. It just so happens that there as many rational numbers as natural numbers, and in fact, just as many integers as natural numbers! In mathematics, we call this the cardinality of a set. For finite sets, the cardinality is simply the number of elements but for infinite sets it gets more interesting, and what cantor showed is that N < R. It has long been conjectured that there is no set S, such that N < S < R. This was known as the continuum hypothesis. However, it won't ever be settled. Kurt Godel and Paul Cohen proved that the continuum hypothesis cannot be proven from the axioms of modern mathematics. 
06042013, 10:37 AM  #36  
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 33,670

Quote:
Do you know about infinities higher than R? I think there is one for the number of curves in 2D space? Probably 2 more infinities higher than R? 

06042013, 02:25 PM  #37  
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,028

Quote:
Proof: It suffices to show that no function f: S > P(S) can be surjective. Let A be the set of all elements x in S such that x is not in f(x). Then if x is in A, x is not in f(x), and so f(x) \= A. If x is not in A, then x is in f(x) \= A. Therefore, no element can get mapped to A, so f is not surjective. Last edited by Claudius : 06042013 at 03:21 PM. 

06042013, 02:39 PM  #38  
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 33,670

Quote:
What about the infinity of curves you can draw in a plane? Is it the same one as R? 

06042013, 03:26 PM  #39  
Professional
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,028

Quote:
The set of points in the plane will have the same cardinality as R, same with the set of curves. 

06042013, 07:53 PM  #40 
Bionic Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 33,670



Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

