Since any any number divided by infinity = 0 or undefined, does that mean in the infinity of time and space of the universe, that we humans = 0 or undefined?
>assuming an infinite universe
>not considering multiverse
question has too much anthropic bias
does this prove that the universe is a hologram?
but div by infinity isn't undefined, it's zero.
>>7859311
>shitting on philosophy
I love this meme
Infinity isn't a number
>>7859316
correct, it's a concept.
also, numbers are concepts, and math is a concept
>>7859315
Oh, no, you misunderstand. I'm not shitting on philosophy -- there is plenty of value in reasoning about philosophy, if only in an aesthetic sense. Like, the difference between Bayesian and Frequentest statistics? Or Popper's utter destruction of logical positivism? That's fine. I'm shitting on thinking because you just discovered the works of Plato, you have anything interesting or meaningful to say about the matter.
>>7859234
It's an old joke from the Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy.
In an infinite universe there could be infinite planets. We already know that many planets contain zero life.
So using the math of (infinite - whatever) / Infinite = 0
So the average population in the universe is zero.
It was stupid then and it's stupid now.
>>7859234
its called a limit faggot fuck you
>>7859339
>this elitism
amazing, simply amazing
>>7859350
>self deprecate for doing pseudo-philosophy in high school
>elitism
lolk
1/2 = .5
1/3 = .33...
1/4 = .25
...
1/infinity = 0.000...
>>7859380
infinity/infinity = infinity
1/infinity does not equal zero.
zero of anything equals zero. 1/infinity times infinity equals 1. The additive inverse of 1/infinity + (-1/infinity) equals 0.
However, 0.999... does equal 1.
>>7859408
infinity/infinity = 1
>>7859474
HAHAHAHA KILL YOURSELF PLZ
is there such a thing as a base infinity number system?
>>7859234
Infinity is a little more complicated, as in, there is more than one kind of infinity: countable and uncountable. Integers are countable. Real numbers are not. Here are some examples to wrap your mind around.
There are the same number of integers as there are positive integers since there is a 1-1 mapping. There are also the same number of rational numbers using something called diagonalization. However there are more real numbers between zero and one than there are rational numbers. The number of transcendental numbers exceed the non-trancendental numbers, and the number of functions from reals to reals is some kind of infinity that is bigger than any I just listed.
That said, in math infinity is more of a LIMIT than a NUMBER, so something as simple as:
1/x
as x->0 is UNDEFINED because if you approach zero from -1..0 you get -infinity and if you approach from 1..0 you get +infinity, or more correctly, the limit of 1/x tends toward + or - infinity, ether gets very fucking positive or very fucking negative, but hurr durr, it cannot do both. So math throws up its arms and says undefined.
Clear?
>>7859515
so that means we're undefined?
>>7859629
>we're undefined
huh?
>>7859474
You don't consider the size of the two infinities. Besides, infinity isn't even a fucking number, so how are you going to deal out infinite pizzas to infinite people to say it simple.
>>7859666
satan checked
>>7859505
well..what is it?
>>7859690
There's a difference between undefined and indeterminate form.
For a very informal explanation:
Let x = 1/0.
Rearranging gives 0x = 1.
No matter what x you choose, this equation will never be satisfied, and hence we call it undefined.
Next, consider x = 0/0.
Rearranging gives 0x = 0.
Any x we choose satisfies this equation.
Should we choose 0? 1? 2? infinity?
Hence we call it an indeterminate form.
Similarly for the infinity/infinity case.
Why does this difference matter? Some theorems like L'Hopital's rule, which applies to indeterminate forms cannot be applied to something that is undefined for example. (Indeed, in some undefined cases, in the limit we do not need L'Hopital's)
>>7859234
"Dividing a number by infinity" is just bullcrap. It's like dividing a number by your eyecolor. Infinity isn't a number, so obviously you cannot divide by it.
>>7859896
infinity is a concept
numbers are a concept
mathematics is a concept
think outside the box for a change
>>7859971
define "concept"
>>7860031
define "define"
>>7859971
Rhinos are grey. Elephants are grey. Therefore, rhinos are elephants.
>>7860127
nice strawman you got there
>>7859234
Yes
>>7859234
memes aside infinity is not a number and you cannot divide by non-numbers .
humans are also not numbers .
>>7859234
>implying human = some_constant / time
>>7862001
humans occupy a volume
that volume / the volume of the universe, which is infinite
a human life is measured in time
that measurement / the timeframe of the universe, which is infinite
nice try, shitlord
>>7862032
humans have a conscious experience, which is immeasurable
>>7862826
so? just because something can't be quantified doesn't make it significant
>>7859971
Except we defined some rules for the concept numbers, which don't apply to the concept infinity. If you're too stupid to think inside the box,you can't even begin to think outside it.
As x -> the amount of fucks I give, f(x) -> undefined, DNE
>>7859234
What's with the highschool-level lol2deep bullshit threads recently? Are the stoners invading or what?
>>7863920
DUDE MATH LMAO
>>7863920
Similar. It's a hacker humor thing.
>>7859337
Sure. But numbers have a specific meaning.
Specifically, they satisfy the field axioms of the real numbers.
The extended reals are not metric closed.
That is: what's the multiplicative inverse of infinity? Division by infinity is undefined for exactly that reason.
There are many infinities, some bigger than others.
[math]\mathbb{N}[/math] is an infinite set of numbers, but the set of [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is a larger infinite set because it contains the set of [math]\mathbb{N}[/math].
>>7864801
>because it contains the set of N.
popsci phaggot detected
All I'm getting from this thread is that nobody is qualified to post here
>>7864801
and what about Q and N, faggot?
Totally, you fucking retard
>>7864801
Yes and there are less numbers in [math] 2 \mathbb{N}[/math] than there is in [math]\mathbb{N}[/math]
