this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
907 points (97.8% liked)

Science Memes

11189 readers
4783 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Mr_Fish 89 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Where is i? Is it safe? Is it alright?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 11 months ago

Please stop talking about your imaginary girlfriend, it's embarrassing honestly.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nope, you fell for the classic sibling blunder:

What about INFINITY PLUS ONE!?

[–] [email protected] 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

It's Infinity! Infinity -1? also infinity! Well what about infinity times infinity? Believe it or not, infinity! ♾️

[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Infinity gangsta when aleph null walks in

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

What about infinity times zero?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

For that one we're going to call my good friend L'Hôpital. That guy rules!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 70 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Last time I saw this kind of challenge it was on reddit and I just replied with ℝ, but people brought up that this leaves out complex numbers. I'll now contend, however, that any number not included in that isn't real.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago (3 children)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago

Quaternions hello?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] zzx 4 points 11 months ago

This image goes so hard

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Just like birds, complex numbers aren't real!

Screw you sqrt(-1), you aren't even a real number, you poser!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 11 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Aren't there numbers past (plus/minus) infinity? Last I hear there's some omega stuff (for denoting numbers "past infinity") and it's not even the usual alpha-beta-omega flavour.

Come to think of it, is there even a notation for "the last possible number" in math? aka something that you just can't tack "+1" at the end of to make a new number?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What you're probably thinking of is Ordinal numbers.

As for your second question, I don't think any "last number" could exist unless we explicitly declared one. And even then... I'm not sure what utility there would be in declaring a "last number".

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Which of the infinities? There are many, many :D

The smallest infinity is the size of the natural numbers. That infinty, Aleph zero, is smaller than the infinity of the real numbers, Aleph one. "etc."

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number

[–] DoomBot5 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Wait, they ran out of greek letters and started using Hebrew ones now? When did that happen?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Which of the infinities? There are many, many :D

Oh no! Please don't tell me there are infinity infinities!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Unfortunately yes there are and it's a very big infinity of infinties....

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] kerrigan778 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

There is nothing "past" infinity, infinity is more a concept than a number, there are however many different kinds of infinity. And for the record, infinity + 1 = infinity, those are completely equal. Infinity + infinity = infinity x 2 = still the same kind of infinity. Infinity times infinity is debatably a different kind of infinity but there are fairly simple ways of showing it can be counted the same.

Essentially the number of numbers between 1 and 2 is the same as the number of numbers between 0 and infinity. They are still infinite.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Hi, I'm a mathematician. My specialty is Algebra, and my research includes work with transfinites. While it's commonly said that infinity "isn't a number" I tend to disagree with this, since it often limits how people think about it. Furthermore, I always find it odd when people offer up alternatives to what infinity is; are numbers never concepts?

Regardless, here's the thing you're actually concretely wrong about: there are provably things bigger than infinity, and they are all bigger infinities. Furthermore, there are multiple kinds of transfinite algebra. Cardinal algebra behaves mostly like how you described, except every transfinite cardinal has a successor (e.g. There are countably many natural numbers and uncountably many complex numbers). Ordinal algebra, on the other hand, works very differently: if ω is the ordinal that corresponds to countable infinity, then ω+1>ω.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You have the spirit of things right, but the details are far more interesting than you might expect.

For example, there are numbers past infinity. The best way (imo) to interpret the symbol ∞ is as the gap in the surreal numbers that separates all infinite surreal numbers from all finite surreal numbers. If we use this definition of ∞, then there are numbers greater than ∞. For example, every infinite surreal number is greater than ∞ by the definition of ∞. Furthermore, ω > ∞, where ω is the first infinite ordinal number. This ordering is derived from the embedding of the ordinal numbers within the surreal numbers.

Additionally, as a classical ordinal number, ω doesn't behave the way you'd expect it to. For example, we have that 1+ω=ω, but ω+1>ω. This of course implies that 1+ω≠ω+1, which isn't how finite numbers behave, but it isn't a contradiction - it's an observation that addition of classical ordinals isn't always commutative. It can be made commutative by redefining the sum of two ordinals, a and b, to be the max of a+b and b+a. This definition is required to produce the embedding of the ordinals in the surreal numbers mentioned above (there is a similar adjustment to the definition of ordinal multiplication that is also required).

Note that infinite cardinal numbers do behave the way you expect. The smallest infinite cardinal number, ℵ₀, has the property that ℵ₀+1=ℵ₀=1+ℵ₀. For completeness sake, returning to the realm of surreal numbers, addition behaves differently than both the cardinal numbers and the ordinal numbers. As a surreal number, we have ω+1=1+ω>ω, which is the familiar way that finite numbers behave.

What's interesting about the convention of using ∞ to represent the gap between finite and infinite surreal numbers is that it renders expressions like ∞+1, 2∞, and ∞² completely meaningless as ∞ isn't itself a surreal number - it's a gap. I think this is a good convention since we have seen that the meaning of an addition involving infinite numbers depends on what type of infinity is under consideration. It also lends truth to the statement, "∞ is not a number - it is a concept," while simultaneously allowing us to make true expressions involving ∞ such as ω>∞. Lastly, it also meshes well with the standard notation of taking limits at infinity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KmlSlmk64 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

IIRC Depends if you talk about cardinal or ordinal numbers. What I remember: In cardinal numbers (the normal numbers we think of, which denote quantity, etc.) have their maximum in infinity. But in ordinal numbers (which denote order - first, second, etc.) Can go past infinity - the first after infinity is omega. Then omega +1. And then some bigger stuff, which I don't remember much, like aleph 0 and more.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Hi! I'm a mathematician, and if you want to know more about infinity, I recommend this video: https://youtu.be/23I5GS4JiDg

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hansl 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh you like math? Name all the sets of sets that don’t include themselves.

[–] zzx 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Russell is that you? Please stop breaking my formal systems

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Stupidmanager 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

[0-9]*\.?[0-9]*

edit: ok no empty strings [0-9]+\.?[0-9]*

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That regex implies “” is a number

[–] [email protected] 21 points 11 months ago

If I had a nickel for every time that happened I'd have "" nickels.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I didn't realize '.' is a number.

\([0-9]+\.[0-9]\)?[0-9]* is more accurate I think.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

You also have to remember to put the +C at the end

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago
[–] waigl 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

Fred.

(∀x:Number(x)=T)(Name(x)="Fred")

I name every number Fred.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox 4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Which negative infinity or positive infinity includes zero?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Brackets and a comma like that indicate a range, not just a list of 2 values

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

But those are parentheses, are they not? I was taught intervals using square brackets and semicolon. While parentheses are used for coordinates and tuples. The square brackets indicates inclusion of the boundary number.

Ie. the statement "2

Update: apparently either lemmy or my app (boost) wasn't that excited for my less than signs, and just skipped the rest of the comment. And here I had spent time copying both "less than or equal to" and infinity signs, since my keyboard doesn't seem to have them... For the time being pls disregard the comment above, while I figure out how to write math on lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's likely just you were taught a different notation. Personally I was taught (x, y) can mean both coordinates x and y or a range from x-y (non inclusive), just depends on context which it is. Brackets like [x,y] I was taught are for inclusive ranges (i.e., x and y are included in the range)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

It's certainly between them somewhere

[–] bfg9k 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There is actually zero as well as negative zero for reasons beyond my comprehension

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›