An English lesson, that's infinity isn't it?

Zmurf wrote:

∞ = 1/0

Except 1/0 simply can't be done (any number times 0 gives 0, never 1), so 1/0 is "undefined".

]]>∞ = 1/0

Try to split 1 evenly between zero groups. That would be infinity. Atleast based on the elemntary school idea that divsion is giving an equal share of x to y amount of groups.

]]>The only thing I deny is my denial.

But serious, what are you talking about George?

the point and assumption you use is that since before 2,2,2.... there are infinite numbers (or elements) of 1, 2 can not exist in the set.

By same argument, I would say 2 in R set cannot have the chance to appear, for there are perhaps even more numbers ahead of it, and most of all you cannot find the number *exactly* ahead of 2.

and you also know that

Humans have been in battle with flies, bugs and virus for hundreds of years. But that do not prove humans had solved them already.

]]>B = { ...2,2,2,1,1,1...}]]>

But serious, what are you talking about George?

]]>to me it seems mroe symbolic than mathematical, and ironically, if something is infinite, then it is beyond our understanding anyway, and so there is no point ever trying to consider what it is like because we will always fall short

When you get up to higher maths, you find that *all* of math is symbolic.

Infinity is not beyond our understanding. It is beyond many peoples understanding, that is true. But not a mathematicians. For example:

f(x) = 1/x

We know what would happen if we reach infinity. f(x) = 0. Of course, we never do reach infinity, but we know what would happen if we did.

Mathematicians have been studying infinity for hundreds of years. And we know a heck of a lot about it. We know it has properties, just like anything else in math. We know that if we come across it in equations, we can use tricks to get rid of it.

]]>Jimmymcjummingtin - You have to imagine a set

where the three dots represent an infinite amount of the preceding number. This gives you an infinite amount of 1's, followed by an infinite amount of 2's and then an infinite amount of 3's and so on. Ricky's claim is then that the set would only include 1's, since the proceding numbers wouldnt be included(you can't reach an infinite amount of 1's, which you would need to move on to filling in 2's). Dunno if it helps(or if it's correct? )]]>

Infinity can have some weird properties. I invite people to post examples showing that this is true.

I'll start off with something we were doing today in Advanced Calculus:

Consider the set A = {1, 1, 1, ... , 2, 2, 2, ... , 3, 3, 3 ...}

Where "..." implies for infinity.

Believe it or not, A = {1, 1, 1...}

2, 3, 4... are never included in that set!

... what?

]]>P.S i don't like thinking about infinite, too many people have spent all their lives thinking aobut it, and though it is everything, it is nothing at the same time.

]]>