I don't have a particular interest in mathematics, but I have been introduced to some concepts and examples involving "infinity". I am told on good authority that it is not a number, real, rational, irrational, integer, whole or natural.
Despite this, paradoxes such as the Hilbert Hotel example essentially begin by saying "so imagine an infinite number of something interacting with another infinite number of something else".
Why is this tolerated when it isn't a number? Irrespective of the "its supposed to demonstrate the problem", it defies the sole axiom of its existence as a concept by quantifying it so. It isn't a number.
I'm more than happy have an explanation as to why I am wrong; like I say I am in no way a mathematician.
>>7791335
Those paradoxes do not invoke it as a number but in the context of sets. And infinite sets are rigorously defined and perfectly rational (in the sense that they make sense).
>>7791370
But surely the fact the a set contains within itself a non-finite condition, it is still applying such a concept in quantifiable terms.
If this "infinity" has no bearing on the set and how it is dealt with, why not use a finite condition instead?
>>7791405
>But surely the fact the a set contains within itself a non-finite condition, it is still applying such a concept in quantifiable terms.
We are still applying that but in terms of mathematics, that isn't breaking the rules. In the real world infinity may be out of our reach but in math you can play with infinity in the same way you play with the number one, for example.
>why not use a finite condition instead?
Because this would not be enough to explain mathematics.
The set of all natural numbers has infinitely many members. So do the integers, reals, rational, hyperreals, etc. And here it makes perfect sense.
The paradoxes you are talking about try to break the bounds of infinity and apply to the real world and they do so in order to prove a point. To show how logic and common sense immediately break down when you introduce infinity.
You have a full hotel with infinitely many rooms? Full implies that there is no room left but with infinity, that does not matter. That definition is made meaningless by infinity.
In other words, don't take the paradoxes as characteristics of infinity because infinity doesn't really exist in the real world.
>Find a paper on the exact thing you're looking for
>Your institute doesn't have a subscription to that journal
talk to your research advisor or a professor that you have a good relationship with, usually they are able to get any paper you need by asking former colleagues from other institutions to get it for them
Pirate it.
IKTFB
Fucking sux
Nice try, chipotle
>>7791011
LOL the reason they chose to compare the burrito to the carnitas bowl is probably because the carnitas bowl has no vegetables that naturally contain SiO2. Very disingenuous.
>>7791011
>e. coli-potle desperately trying to damage control
Why is it safe to eat silica in food but not the silica from those packets that they put in the food container?
So Japan confirmed for having the best looking laboratory on the ISS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4
>8:40
because the hull is folded 10,000 times
>>7790845
Is there an reason why we don't use centrifugal force by now to prevent all the expensive specialty items having to be used?
Is it just really expensive to apply this idea to a space station?
>>7790872
>Is there an reason why we don't use centrifugal force by now to prevent all the expensive specialty items having to be used?
For it to match earth like gravity it has to be massive which would cost trillions of dollars to build in today's dollars
Goku vs a black hole
neither exist so its a pointless discussion
>>7790830
>black holes don't exist
what is this epic new meme?
>>7791326
They are white holes now.
Can you prove 3^x is equal to 3^(1-x) using only expoents rules?
You are not allowed to turn it into an equation
>>7790782
>can you prove 3^x is equal to 3^(1-x) using only expoents rules?
Let x=0
3^0=1
3^(1-0)=3^1=3
1=/=3
This doesn't even make sense
3^2=9, 3^(1-2)=1/3
>>7790782
no...
Is Pinker right?
>>7790763
>pinky
>right
Pick one.
>>7790763
>IQ thread
not again anon...
saged and reported
>>7790914
> triggered over IQ threads
there is a place for you in mcdonalds
anybody got Solutions to Differential Topology by Guillemin and Pollack? online i can only find for the first few chapters, but im beyond that and would like to work on chapters 3 and 4(integration of manifolds, etc)
also, Topology thread
>>7790724
bump
bump
im op
Oh shit anon I actually got this book for Christmas and am enjoying it so far.
Slowly dicking around in the first chapter, not very far sadly.
My only problems are that they assume manifolds are embedded in R^n instead of talking about arbitrary manifolds.
Also, in the first chapter when they definied a manifold, aren't they defining a smooth manifold using diffeomorphisms instead of homeomorphisms.
It's a differential topology text so obviously the focus is on differentiable/smooth/analytic manifolds but I feel to someone comepletely new to the subject, there could be confusion.
Solar activity needed for some nice space weather?
PWAH! Took this and the other pic this morning when NOAA's sensors said everything was flatlined.
Thule AB, Greenland if you are wondering where.
Nice ! Keep posting OP.
The Sun is always active.
/sci/ I beg of you for help. I spent my whole evening trying to figure this out...maybe I'm a square head. Honestly, I know it's somtehing with logarithms...but I have no idea how to solve it. Really I used a lot of papers...can anyone please help me?
>>7790657
X=0
Try to study the variations of 4^x + 2^-x and of 2-x^2 to show this solution is unique
>>7790669 misread your 2 as a 4, but he's right.
x=0 is the only solution. To see this, try graphing both the left side (which is concave up with a minimum at x=0) and the right side (which is concave down with a maximum at x=0). So the two graphs can intersect at only the point (0,2), so the only solution is x=0.
>>7790684
>solve by graphing
u a shit senpai desu
Hello fellow teaching assistents.
What is the most annoying thing you encountered while teaching/grading? Greentexts are most welcome.
>>7790639
Other TAs.
No seriously, I always get stuck with
A) Someone who is too lazy to come in half the time.
B) Some retard who doesn't understand the suject and shy's away during tuts.
C) Some ugly neckbeard/landwhale who tries to be elitist because they have nothing else going for them.
Just once I'd like to have a normal fucking TA working with me.
OP. Spelling errors.
>>7790671
I always wound up having a talkative girl teach recitation with me. It was nice; I'd let her introduce things and then I'd fill in the technical details she didn't know.
Any psychologists here? Doesn't have to be, but I'm interested in one word I can't remember.
You know when somebody creates something, for example, composes a piece, or writes a story, and then realizes (or doesn't) that he actually didn't create anything. Instead, he subconsciously pulled it from some part of his memory and just thought how it is truly his work. Here is my example to make it more clear: Some years ago, I was improvising on a piano and made a theme I quite liked. I showed it to my mother and asked her what she thought about it and she said: "Oh, that is that "XY" song by Elvis." This is probably the first time I realized I made something without being aware at all that I heard it somewhere before.
I am quite sure there is a word for this phenomenon, but I can't remember it nor find it. Does anybody know the answer?
>>7790608
The word is PLAGIARISM and it's a CRIME!
>>7790608
Plagiarism
and
Accidental Plagiarism
are the more common terms. The history is very interesting as it use to not be a crime, and even now it has such complex legality it obviously needs to be over hauled.
But I think the word you are looking for is
Kleptomnesia
Hope that helps.
> I am very familiar with Elvis, but had no idea he did the XY song. Sounds nothing like him, really shows his impressive musical abilities to pull it off like that
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aywhkAsVNQ
>>7790675
>>7790712
Eh, I think neither of those are the one. I'm fairly sure there is a latin definition of it. And, while it technically is plagiarism, I'm not going down that route here, I was thinking about times when creators use some idea, just a piece of something from their subconscious, they just don't realize it didn't just pop in their head from nowhere. It was something they actually heard or seen before. Yes, in my case I composed a whole chorus but that was just an overblown example.
>XY meme
You're a funny guy. But yeah, it was actually "Can't help falling in love with you" if you really want to know.
Hey /sci/, /k/ here. why isn't petrol used instead of gunpowder?
>video related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS_2JD5whRY
>>7790420
Difference in cost is HUGE, they use cordite a lot too now.
>>7790420
The strength of a reaction using petrol would be limited by how much oxygen you could get to it. As gunpowder comes with an included oxidizer, it doesn't have this problem.
>>7790420
Why are they measuring in volume (teaspoons) instead of mass?
How scientific is it?
%200 scientific
http://ghostadventures.wikia.com/wiki/Best_Evidence_(episode)
>>7790418
Ghosts were confirmed with quantum theory.
Ghosts are just spooky manifestations of the randomness of quantum particles.
Like, when you see a ghost move a chair, it is just that the quarks that made up the chair randomly decided to all spin to that direction at the same time, creating a net force that moved the chair to that direction.
'Ghost Busters' are actually Applied Particle Physicists who visit people's houses to calm down the quantum fields there and also study them so that maybe one day they can comprehend all the spookiness.
What does /sci/ think ot SETI?
How do I get a job at SETI?
It's a meme. Don't bother.
>>7790416
>SETI
>Settee
>>7790416
>he thinks he can find ayylmaos
