Is 1 = 0.999... ? Really?

Regardless of its present quality, if you start posting funny gifs, you’re gonna make it worse than it was (and significantly so.)

Yes, you need comic relief, because you are frustrated (:

Not quite. The whole reason why every infinite set is larger than every finite set is that infinity is by definition a number larger than every finite number (but not, as some claim, the largest number possible.)

So if you agree that infinity is a number larger than every finite number, do you still think that infinity is not a number (or that it makes no sense to say that an infinite set has size)?

Reminding you of the definition of the word “add” (or the operation of addition.)

There is only one sense in which (\infty) + 1 = (\infty) is true. It’s true in the sense that any infinite number plus one gives you an infinite number. However, it’s not true in the sense that any infinite number plus one gives you an infinite number of the same size.

I feel the same about you (and Silhouette and Ecmandu.) But I don’t make a fuss about it. If I don’t want to argue, I simply stop arguing.

All in all, you’re wrong (and horribly so) and if you don’t want to argue anymore, that’s perfectly fine by me.

Sure. I’m going to do everything while you do nothing.

Symbols (such as words) have no truth-value on their own. The word “apple” is neither true nor false on its own. It’s merely a symbol with certain meaning attached to it. (The meaning of a symbol being the set of all things that can be represented by that symbol.) It is only when you use that word to represent some portion of reality that it acquires truth-value. For example, when you use the word “apple” to represent what’s inside some box. Such an association can be represented with a statement such as “There is an apple inside the box”. That’s either true or false. Either what’s inside the box can be represented with the word “apple” or it cannot be. But the word “apple” on its own has no truth-value.

You’re implying that I misunderstood you. I didn’t. That’s exactly how I interpreted what you wrote. You said that the symbol (\infty) can be used to represent infinity but that there is maximal pretense in doing so. My claim is that there is no pretense whatsoever. The fact that you think that there’s a pretense involved is what indicates to me that you do in fact think that symbols have to look like what they represent. (I’m not really sure you understand what I mean by this. Your impatience is on the rise, so I can expect you to misunderstand me more and more.)

There you go. You just said that the symbol of infinity must “sum up”, i.e. must look like, infinity.

Note that I’m not saying that you think that symbols must look exactly like (i.e. 100% like) what they represent.

I’m saying that you think that symbols must look like what they represent to a certain degree (the exact number is irrelevant.)

I’m saying that they don’t have to. I’m saying that they can look completely different from what they represent (as in cryptography.)

The statement “There is an infinite line of green apples in front of you” looks nothing like what it represents, but if the thing in front of you is an infinite line of green apples, then the statement is true.

The meaning of a symbol is something that exists independently from the symbol.

That’s not true.

Not quite. They mean different things.

Yes, they do, and what that means is that “division by zero” is an undefined expression i.e. there is no meaning assigned to it.

Unfortunately for you, the word “infinite” does have a meaning, so it’s not undefined. The word “infinite” means “without end”.

I make no such mistake. In fact, it is people who claim that (0.\dot9 = 1) that make that mistake over and over again.

You know nothing.

You’re hallucinating.

There’s only one way that infinite sets can be infinite does not mean that infinite sets don’t come in sizes.

Actually, it’s defined as endlessness.

Absolutely, infinity is not a number! I don’t have this as well thought out as possible, but the reason infinity is larger than any finite quantity is because it’s beyond quantity–meaning it’s not a quantity but a direction is insinuated. That is to say, “beyond” implies that you approach it by going in the positive direction, the direction we call “greater”. But still, it goes beyond the numbers and therefore isn’t a number itself.

Really, see my reply to obsrvr.

Oh heck, I’ll do it:

When you say (\infty) + 1 > (\infty), to me that’s the same as saying endlessness + 1 > endlessness, or perhaps red + 1 > red.

^ All things that aren’t numbers so don’t make sense to plug them into math.

Who said I wanted to stop arguing? I said I want to stop trying to convince you step #3 is your flaw.

Ha! You wish!

You can start any time.

That’s because the word “infinity” has multiple definitions. One of them is “endlessness” which is not a quantity (because it need not refer to lack of quantitative end.) The other is “endless quantity” which is a quantity that is greater than every finite number.

If you can say that something is more than (or less than) something else, then you can say that that something (and that something else) is a quantity.

Not really. It makes sense either way.

Endlessness and red aren’t numbers. (\infty) is. This is evident in the fact that it represents a quantity greater than every finite number.

I know you’re ignoring me Magnus,

But here’s the deal.

If you believe calculus,

Every “finite sum”, has an infinite amount of infinite sequences converging towards it if you believe in convergent theories.

The reason I call them “finite sums” in quotes is because they are all “equal” to infinite series.

That means that any counting number you pick, is “equal to”, an infinite series, which means that are all infinite.

I don’t buy this argument, but if you believe in calculus, you do!

Ok, Magnus, but you know what I say to people who come up with their own definitions: you’re on your own.

Error: assertion denied!

Error: assertion denied! Error overload! Exploding!

That’s true.

That’s true but is irrelevant and the sole point of it is to show that you know what a limit is.

That’s true.

That does not follow. Indeed, the opposite is what follows. Because (0.\dot01) never attains (0), this means there is a gap between (0.\dot01) and (0).

When you say that the gap cannot be defined to exist, what you mean is that it cannot be represented using one of the numbers they taught you in school.

If they don’t teach it at school, it doesn’t exist.

Tell that to Google.

Silhouette is going to have a seizure!

What’s interesting to me about this thread is that you, Silhouette and I all fall on different spectrums…

You: orders of infinity exist, 0.999… does not equal 1

Silhouette: no orders of infinity exist, 0.999… does equal 1

Me: no orders of infinity exist, 0.999… does not equal 1

Gib hasn’t commented on his orientation yet.

Needless to say, it makes for very interesting discussion.

No matter how you try to explain the difference between red and green, you cannot get a dog to see color.

Actually, they don’t.

Mathematicians do say that the result of division by zero is undefined but they do not say that it is undefinable. Undefined (\neq) undefinable.

(\frac1\infty) is valid (i.e. there is absolutely nothing wrong about it) even if we’re working with the insufficiently defined concept of infinity that Observer is talking about.

The only problem is that such a symbol of infinity does not necessarily represent the same infinite quantity wherever it appears in the equation, making it possible to say such things as (\infty + 1 = \infty) and (\frac1\infty \times \frac{1}{10} = \frac1\infty) without being wrong. The bigger problem is that it leads to erroneous conclusions such as the one we can see in many Wikipedia “proofs” of the equality between (0) and (0.\dot9). But this isn’t a problem with the definition as much as it is a problem with people not following its implications.

By changing the definition of the symbol of infinity from “an infinite quantity that is not necessarily the same as the one represented by the same symbol elsewhere in the equation” to “an infinite quantity that is the same as the one represented by the same symbol elsewhere in the equation”, expressions such as (\infty + 1 = \infty) can no longer be said to be true.

We know very well what the word “infinity” means. You don’t.

Magnus:

Infinity + 1 either equals infinity or it does not.

You are using the logic of finite math:

Infinity + 1 = infinity + 1

With non finite math,

Infinity + 1 still equals infinity

Do they have proof that 0 * ∞ = 0?

I’m not so sure that it does. How could that be proven?

And if it doesn’t, they can only say that a/0 is undefined, not undefinable.

“Infinity” doesn’t exist. An infinite thing can exist (and does I’m sure) but infinity is defined as the point where parallel lines meet. Since parallel lines do not meet, infinity cannot exist.

James’ infA exists as a specific infinite series. That is not the same as infinity.

Well… you’re going to have to reign your “friend” in, because he’s using axioms like 1/infinity!

Not really. It depends on what (\infty + 1 = \infty) means.

Magnus,

We live in infinity. Like physics states, you cannot add matter or subtract matter from existence, all you can do it move it around.

This means that you cannot use infinity proper as something that can be affected by operators.

It’s a display.
Whilst it’s possible to make an objective mistake in how information internally relates to other information, you cannot make an objective mistake in how you subjectively decide to display that information.
But you CAN mislead, and come to mistaken conclusions as a result of this misleading.

It’s painfully clear that the blues sum up to the yellow and the reds sum up to the purple - those two separate interactions are objectively fine, and the utility of your subjective choice to display the respective sums underneath what they sum is nice and convenient. That part’s fine too.

Where you’re misleading is in allowing this subjective display positionings of the blues and the yellow to affect the objective position of the purples, which do not overlap or have anything to do with the operation of summing the blues to get the yellow. Likewise for the reds, you could subjectively display them anywhere you like and they’d still objectively sum to the purples. It’s only subjectively convenient to put them next to the blues so the visual grouping of the greens is clearer, but even if you displayed them anywhere else that you liked: the first element of the greens would still be the first element of the blues, the second element of the greens would still be the first element of the reds and so on.

Subjective display choices have absolutely no influence on the objective fact that element 1 of the greens equals element 1 of the purples with perfect correspondence. The second green and the second purple are also equal, and so on with perfect objective bijection. Your display choices have nothing to do with this.

Again. You’re getting carried away by superficials. Stop it.
You’re trying to conflate subjective clarity with objective positioning.

Again, it’s perfectly relevant: limits are at the core of “infinite series” whether sums or products, differentiation, integration - for any and all the many mathematical applications of divergence and convergence.

There is no “product itself” of a divergent infinite product - you never get there. The only thing you can do is identify some limit that it’s tending towards because of the very fact that it never gets there.

Again, your non-mathematical thinking and lack of knowledge on the topic betrays you. Stop pretending you have expertise even when you admit you don’t.

(1+\infty) is almost literally “more boundless” (by the finite quantity of “one”).
Something can’t be more boundless than boundless, so it’s boundless whatever finite thing you do to it along its boundlessness. That’s why adding one results in boundlessness both before and after you do it, and therefore (\infty) applies either way, with any finite adjustment contradictory and meaningless. It’s literally impossible to test whether you added, took away or did whatever bounded thing to a boundless length after you’ve done it and are therefore able to make an equation about it. You can only validly comment on what you did with the finite quantity of 1 apple before it was absorbed into the boundless non-finite mass, you cannot validly comment on that resulting infinity that stays infinite in the same and only way that infinity can be infinite. So with no change in the result, there is therefore no valid equation or statement to make about the result as changed.

It’s like a drop into an infinite ocean. In a finite ocean, even a drop would raise the sea level by some miniscule amount depending on the size of the ocean. In an infinite ocean, the drop would be 1 finite drop all the way until it went into the ocean, which would be sizeless both before and after, with the finitude of the drop completely absorbed into the infinitude of the ocean - its defined finitude annihiliated. The equation of adding 1 to infinity is a statement about the result of such an addition, which remains as infinitude. Before the equation, either the apple or drop is still finitely one. After that, it isn’t anything, and the change is literally 0. This doesn’t mean 1=0, this is only the kind of contradiction between finites that you get when dealing with undefinables/infinities, which is exactly why you can’t treat infinite quantities like finite quantities that you can equate and operate on consistently.

Your error is to say that since 1=0 is a contradiction, we ought to be able to treat infinites alongside finites as though they were compatible.
The correct approach is to understand that treating infinites alongside finites as a contradiction, which is proven by the fact that it leads to contradictions between finites. Relating infinites to finites as though they were compatible is a prior error to the contradiction of the kind 1=0, which is merely a symptom of your initial error. Semantically this makes perfect sense as well, since there’s only one way infinites can be infinite, no matter what tinkering you do to them with finites.

Yeah the phrase is my own invention - and a damn good one too! But I guess since the standard definition is “already so good”, saying literally nothing about what infinity “is” and only what it “isn’t” then I guess that makes my idiosyncratic summation completely invalid :wink: Your “logic” always makes me laugh :laughing:

I have no doubt that the irony of this comment will be lost on you, considering it is an assertion that lacks argument, but whatever - it’s been clear what I’m dealing with for a while now.

It’s also hypocritical:

Great reasoning.

Great reasoning.

“Not quite.” seems to be up there with “you only tell me what to think, you don’t explain” as your most frequent response.
Oh the hypocrisy…
But let me guess your excuse for your double standards on explanation: it’s “unnecessary to do so” and “One doesn’t have to prove more than it’s necessary”, or maybe you “don’t have to go any further than this” or “I don’t have to respond to anyone unless I wish to do so.”
So many of these gems just falling out your mouth, I could start up a jewellery shop!

Just repeat your debunked claim. Provide no explanation.
I’ve been saying all along that infinity having no destination is exactly why (0.\dot9 = 1)

See, things like this just confirm your irrationality.
No hesitation by you to jump to obviously false extremes with the presumed intention to rile me up :slight_smile:

Oh, and “great reasoning”.

Oh boy :laughing: It’s right here buddy:

Man, the things you try and get away with! Saying I’m hallucinating that you finally admitted an obvious truth that I can easily find and quote back to you :laughing:

So there’s only one way that infinite sets can be infinite but there’s more than one way that infinite sets can be infinite in size.

Contradictions abound!

And there I was saying “truth is a relative term in that it relates two things and their likeness.”

And here you are saying “apple” on its own has no truth-value, as if that was remotely close to countering what I said.

I told you to put the straw man down.

My frustration is piqued by the consistency of things like the above, where you insist you’ve not misunderstood me when “exactly how (you) interpreted what (I) wrote” is in direct contradiction to something I said - e.g. just above.
My patience, however, whilst uncharacteristically thin, holds regardless.

I know what your claim is. You think there’s no issue at all in treating the indefinite as a definite symbol.
You proceed to operate upon that symbol as though it represented a definite quantity, and thus claim validity in your conclusion and you were dealing with an indefinite all along.

You also claim that I think symbols have to look like what they represent, which is something I’ve now repeatedly stressed I don’t mean.

Signifiers sharing the property of “being defined” with what they signify does not mean sharing the property of “looking like each other”. This obsession you have with appearances is just more evidence that you’re getting carried away by appearances. Whether or not something is “defined” is a product of its essence, as bounded, not its appearance.

As explained above, just no.

Cryptography is entirely irrelevant here, because even encoded information takes definite form, just like decoded information and all symbols regardless of cryptography.
But since you mention cryptography, try encrypting a number that’s infinite into a finite number, using only numbers.
What, you can’t? That’s correct.
You need further symbols than just numbers to explain that what you’re really dealing with (an infinite number) cannot be expressed using just numbers.
You need to go on to explain that you’re expressing what can’t be finitely expressed in a finite form anyway - but let’s just hope there’s a mathematician on the other end and not Magnus, to be sure nothing gets lost in translation, and that the receiver doesn’t go on to treat a number that couldn’t be expressed with just finite numbers as though it could be expressed and operated on and dealt with as though it could be expressed with just finite numbers.

Sure, if saying what something “isn’t” gives it a meaning about what it “is”.
You don’t seem to understand the extent to which “ends” apply when it comes to definition.
Full definitions that include what something “is” as well as what it “isn’t” are separating what it “is” from what it “isn’t” by a bound (i.e. an “end”) that’s as clear as possible.

And yes, thanks for confirming I was right about something.
The reason that expressions that include e.g. division by zero are undefined is because you can’t clearly bound what it “is” from what it “isn’t”, since in this case any answer is no more valid than any other:
Allowing some definite answer “n”, multiply the expression (n=\frac0{0}) by the fraction’s denominator to get (n\times0=0) and we quickly see that any quantity “n” multiplied by zero yields zero. “n” can’t be a definite answer: proof by contradiction. This is what undefined means.

We’ll make a mathematician out of you yet!

Progress.

Keep practicing.

As above, limits are at the core of infinite series.

See how you’re only going for one side of the “undefined” and concluding that the other side therefore doesn’t exist?
(0.\dot01) never gets to (0) also means no gap can ever come into existence between (0.\dot01) and (0).

The undefinability of any “gap” means there’s no grounds to distinguish (0.\dot9) from (1), nor (0.\dot01) from (0).

Saying there’s always a smaller gap, therefore there always is “a” gap that never fully vanishes, is no different from saying there’s never any point at which the gap can be said to come into existence.
“Undefined” (\to) “a gap exists” is erroneous. But it is valid to say that any such gap can never be defined therefore it’s undefinable and cannot be said to exist at all.
Any reversal of something like “it can’t be said to not exist either” does not mean “It can be said to exist” - this would commit the formal fallacy of “affirming a disjunct”.

Fortunately for me (0.\dot01) isn’t a valid quantity in the first place as it’s bounding either end of an endlessness, which is a contradiction. So it’s unsound to use it in any of the further reasoning that you’d need to define any gap never vanishing.
Combine that with “A gap can be said to exist” being a formal fallacy and bingo: “no gap can be said to ever exist” is valid and the equality cannot be disproven.

Many things exist that you don’t learn at school - you should learn about some. Numbers that logically cannot exist are not one of them.
Go back to school - maybe at least then you’ll learn how to learn, and we could actually talk.

So when mathematicians say “undefined” do they mean “well, for now at least”?

A mathematical result being undefined now doesn’t mean it might be later on. It means it cannot be defined period. This is no different from “undefinable”.

The problem of “(\frac1\infty) not necessarily representing the same infinite quantity wherever it appears” is its undefinability. Every single instance of infinity is undefined in itself, never mind the fact that it’s also undefined across all the different equations that are also misleadingly said to “equal” infinity! Differentiating all the different instances of infinity does nothing to define each individual instance, since each individual instance is undefined in itself.
This doesn’t mean “well we can just treat it as definable for all the infinite ways in which it’s undefinable”. That’s as stupid as your claim that Wikipedia proves the equality between (0) and (0.\dot9). No doubt a typo, but stupid either way.

This is the core of what you’re misunderstanding - that even one “infinity” for which we’ve constructed the finites around it in a very specific way, the infinity in the construction is no more or less specific than any divergent result you get from it. It’s undefined “going in” and undefined “going out” - and no matter how precise you are with the finites that you’re operating on infinitely many times, the undefined element of “infinitely many times” is as undefined as any divergence you get.

Only convergence can tend to very precise and specific finite values - even if they’re only the limit, to which we never actually ever arrive. It’s still impossible to define any difference between zero and any “abstract mysteriousness” that you try to assert as “existing”. Whatever magic you try to conjure, it’s always smaller than that, and smaller than that indefinitely such that it cannot ever be said to exist even in your imagination.

I’ve already validly deconstructed obsrvrs’ “definitions” of infinity.
Again - more unexplained assertions by you to accompany all your complaints that you don’t see the explanation in my explanations therefore it’s just an assertion.

The fallacy of “proof by assertion” is keeping such close company with your fallacy of “argument from incredulity”…

“They” have a proof that if (0\times{n}=0), “n” can be any number you want since all numbers multiplied by zero equal zero. Therefore dividing both sides by 0 to get (\frac0{0}) it’s not (\infty) that this equals, but “undefined”.
Except “they” is you too. Maths is objective so it’s your proof just as much as it is anyone else’s.

And as I just said to Magnus, this doesn’t mean temporarily undefined. It means it’ll always be undefinable.

Indeed infinity does not exist. InfA doesn’t either, because it contains within it the “…” that implies “infinitely more times”, which as we’ve just learned is an undefined number of times, which could only lead to an undefined result if it could ever reach any result at all. It has a divergent limit that cannot be definitely specified one way or another - and calling it “infA” doesn’t solve this.

I think that Magnus is exactly right about that and that your claim is exactly wrong.

After we debunk orders of infinity, I’m coming back after silhouette.