posted 05-05-2001 17:32            

I said, for y=1/x, "at what point on the y axis will x equal zero? Infinity would be a valid answer." And I hear alot of namby-pamby definition mongering. I maintain that what I said was valid; substitute infinity into that equation for x and you get 0 for y. Short and sweet.

What I explicitly did not do is to define infinity, and I think you can all guess why; because my degree is in physics, not pure and applied math. If you think math is a religion with pre-defined tenets that can't be argued with, great; go prosyletize. Over here in physics-land, math is a tool whose only use is to solve problems, and the definition of "infinity" is whatever you need it to be to get shit done.

So what we're arguing about, essentially, is whether "infinity" has a single definition, period, end of story, or whether "infinity" is a useful idea that can be applied in many ways. The y=1/x thing I mentioned was just an example, I can think of plenty.
Just to be really annoying, I'll do this as a conversation:

Physicist 1: How long must an electrical wire be to ignore end conditions in calculating its magnetic field?

Physicist 2: Infinity.

Jimbo: Ooh, ooh, ooh! You guys are wrong, length is a scalar value, and infinity is a set! "Infinity" contains "infinity plus one", and "infinity plus two", and so forth, so your "infinity wire" actually has more than one length! Sheesh, you guys are dumb!

Physicist 1: No it doesn't; "infinity plus one" and "infinity plus two" both equal infinity, so they're the same number.

Jimbo: It's not a number, I tell you!

Physicist 2: Sure it is. One, two, three, dot dot dot, Infinity.

Jimbo: You can't say "infinity" for that! You have to say "infinitely large scalar vaue!"

Physicist 1: Whatever.

So that's that. Sorry to use you as a strawman, Jimbo, but as far as I'm concerned, the definition of "infinity" is contextual. And, I would argue, even a mathemtician doing a proof on set theory would not necessarily agree with your definition of Infinity. As I recall from my math classes, there are different orders of infinity. The set of integers is infinite, and it has more elements than the set of positive integers, which is also infinite. Arguing about which arbitrarily large definition of infinity is the Official Capital-I Infinity is like arguing about whether Euclidean geometry or Riemannian geometry is the "Real" geometry.

posted 05-05-2001 17:41            

Let me just point out that I'm not some wussy relatavist who thinks everything is equivalent; just those two things. If one were to take a completely different argument, like, oh say, "Which shell is better, Bash or Korn," then there's a whole different ballgame. Bash is. It's been proven time and time again, using sensitive scientific equipment. All people everywhere agree that Bash is better than Korn (and csh for that matter), end of story. Just thought I'd point that out.

No, this isn't an attempt to draw you all even further off topic. What made you think that?

posted 05-05-2001 21:13            

quote:

---

Originally posted by weis:
The set of integers is infinite, and it has more elements than the set of positive integers, which is also infinite.

---

Actually, no, it doesn't have more elements than the set of positive integers - they both have an infinite number. Infinity + x = infinity, remember?

posted 05-06-2001 06:46            

Infinity is a word that represents all those massively large numbers that no one cares about calculating because it would take to much time.

Now I shall await the backlash...

posted 05-06-2001 11:01            

Ahhh hell fuck it.. that was to much jim beam..

posted 05-07-2001 03:46            

Actually, I didn't like Pi that much. Too heavy, or maybe it tried too hard. It reminded me of eraserhead, and not really in a good way. But I'm not really a deep movie guy.

posted 05-08-2001 13:27         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Demon-of-Elru:
deep... shit

---