3 ms·

> I don't get why people think this? Because, otherwise at least one thing will be missing from infinity, and it wont be infinite in that direction. And that's

> I don't get why people think this? Because, otherwise at least one thing will be missing from infinity, and it wont be infinite in that direction. And that's not the mathematical sense of directions, physics vectors etc. All of them are always limited and they cannot describe infinity. Infinity must be infinite in every way. Its the opposite: A lot of people get stuck at a certain point because they try to describe infinity using mathematical concepts or thinking. Mathematics, which is a framework that is limited in specific ways in order for humans to be able to understand it and calculate through it.

drdeca 4y ago
Ok, so you are just using an IMO mostly useless definition of the term. Fine. That mostly just means you aren’t talking about the same thing as everyone else. Though, what do you call something which isn’t finite then? Or perhaps you define “finite” as “not ‘infinite’” where ‘infinite’ is being used as you use it? In which case, that also makes “finite” mostly useless imo, and I question what you would use to describe something which not only has limits of some kind, but is specifically limited in terms of how much stuff it has, in addition to being limited in terms of what stuff, and specifically, where the “how much” is limited as being less than some natural number.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > mostly useless Its a philosophical approach. Not a mathematical. It does not have to be one. > what you would use to describe something which not only has limits of some kind, but is specifically limited in terms of how much stuff it has, in addition to being limited in terms of what stuff, and specifically, where the “how much” is limited as being less than some natural number. That's a given set of specific limitations. Quite a mathematical concept. Like 'the set of natural numbers up to a given, large number'. It only makes sense within the given limitations and definitions, a precise mathematical use case. Otherwise if you dive into its details, like how an infinite amount of fractional numbers inhabit even that given large set of natural numbers, things go out of hand there too.
  - drdeca 4y ago
    I don’t think it really is a particularly math-specific concept. I mean, it is mathematical in the same way that “how many fingers am I holding up?” is mathematical, but it isn’t specific to any particular axiomatization of something, and is instead expressed in terms of general intuitive notions. If I have a box, I might ask, “is there some number n such that there are fewer than n protons in this box?”. Well, really, the question would be phrased “are there finitely many protons in the box”, but I’m avoiding the word “finite” because you use the word “infinite” differently. The question of “are there ‘un-split-able ones’ ?” goes way back, and is a question about the world, not about math considered abstractly. Aiui, it was considered philosophically. A question as to whether there is a limit to how much things can be split into smaller parts. The question of “Does this thing have a limit of ‘how much’/‘how many’ ?“ is not a question which concerns only mathematicians, but which concerns anyone who seeks to understand the world.

drdeca 4y ago

Ok, so you are just using an IMO mostly useless definition of the term. Fine. That mostly just means you aren’t talking about the same thing as everyone else. Though, what do you call something which isn’t finite then? Or perhaps you define “finite” as “not ‘infinite’” where ‘infinite’ is being used as you use it? In which case, that also makes “finite” mostly useless imo, and I question what you would use to describe something which not only has limits of some kind, but is specifically limited in terms of how much stuff it has, in addition to being limited in terms of what stuff, and specifically, where the “how much” is limited as being less than some natural number.

unity1001 4y ago
> mostly useless Its a philosophical approach. Not a mathematical. It does not have to be one. > what you would use to describe something which not only has limits of some kind, but is specifically limited in terms of how much stuff it has, in addition to being limited in terms of what stuff, and specifically, where the “how much” is limited as being less than some natural number. That's a given set of specific limitations. Quite a mathematical concept. Like 'the set of natural numbers up to a given, large number'. It only makes sense within the given limitations and definitions, a precise mathematical use case. Otherwise if you dive into its details, like how an infinite amount of fractional numbers inhabit even that given large set of natural numbers, things go out of hand there too.
- drdeca 4y ago
  I don’t think it really is a particularly math-specific concept. I mean, it is mathematical in the same way that “how many fingers am I holding up?” is mathematical, but it isn’t specific to any particular axiomatization of something, and is instead expressed in terms of general intuitive notions. If I have a box, I might ask, “is there some number n such that there are fewer than n protons in this box?”. Well, really, the question would be phrased “are there finitely many protons in the box”, but I’m avoiding the word “finite” because you use the word “infinite” differently. The question of “are there ‘un-split-able ones’ ?” goes way back, and is a question about the world, not about math considered abstractly. Aiui, it was considered philosophically. A question as to whether there is a limit to how much things can be split into smaller parts. The question of “Does this thing have a limit of ‘how much’/‘how many’ ?“ is not a question which concerns only mathematicians, but which concerns anyone who seeks to understand the world.