Firedrake969 wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

-ScratchOs wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

-ScratchOs wrote:

∞ * 2 ≡ ∞
∞ + 2 ≡ ∞
∞ - 2 ≡ ∞
∞ / 2 ≡ ∞

All of these rules cannot apply to any real or not real number therefore ∞ is not a number

Which therefore means you cannot do those operations on it xD

exactly

No.. my point is that now the proof is invalid because you just did some operations that you couldn't

I'm fairly sure it's valid because it's proving a point by starting with assuming the opposite… I could be wrong though

You are assuming
∞ + 2 ≡ ∞
but well you just proved it isn't a number so you can't add 2 to it so you could never have added 2.

So maybe ∞ + 2 just isn't equal to infinity.

jokebookservice1 wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

-snip-

You are assuming
∞ + 2 ≡ ∞
but well you just proved it isn't a number so you can't add 2 to it so you could never have added 2.

So maybe ∞ + 2 just isn't equal to infinity.

No, infinity + 2 does equal infinity.

For all limiting processes approaching infinity, adding 2 to them still makes them approach infinity. It might be a slightly different infinity, but it is still infinity. As far as I know, this is also true for all other arithmetic operators, but maybe not exponentials.

Regarding infinity:
How many of you guys have taken calculus? It explains everything that we know about infinity pretty well, as it introduces the concept of the limit, which is basically the basis of infinity as a usable concept.

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

Firedrake969 wrote:

-snip-

You are assuming
∞ + 2 ≡ ∞
but well you just proved it isn't a number so you can't add 2 to it so you could never have added 2.

So maybe ∞ + 2 just isn't equal to infinity.

No, infinity + 2 does equal infinity.

For all limiting processes approaching infinity, adding 2 to them still makes them approach infinity. It might be a slightly different infinity, but it is still infinity. As far as I know, this is also true for all other arithmetic operators, but maybe not exponentials.

Regarding infinity:
How many of you guys have taken calculus? It explains everything that we know about infinity pretty well, as it introduces the concept of the limit, which is basically the basis of infinity as a usable concept.

Ok.

But the argument is still flawed.

Let me “prove” 0 is not a number

0 / 2 = 0

This is not true for any (other?) number.

Therefore 0 is not a number

jokebookservice1 wrote:

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

-snip-

Ok.

But the argument is still flawed.

Let me “prove” 0 is not a number

0 / 2 = 0

This is not true for any (other?) number.

Therefore 0 is not a number

I don't think that that is necessarily the flaw - I think the problem is that the post is implying that those properties are defined for infinity, which is an assumption and not necessarily true. First infinity needs to be defined in some way to have those properties.

Of course, if we are defining infinity as something that has those properties (i.e. infinity + 2 = infinity and infinity - 2 = infinity) it already by definition does not satisfy the definition of a number in the number system we are working in, so the proof has no real point.

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

-snip-

Ok.

But the argument is still flawed.

Let me “prove” 0 is not a number

0 / 2 = 0

This is not true for any (other?) number.

Therefore 0 is not a number

I don't think that that is necessarily the flaw - I think the problem is that the post is implying that those properties are defined for infinity, which is an assumption and not necessarily true. First infinity needs to be defined in some way to have those properties.

Of course, if we are defining infinity as something that has those properties (i.e. infinity + 2 = infinity and infinity - 2 = infinity) it already by definition does not satisfy the definition of a number in the number system we are working in, so the proof has no real point.

my point exactly i think

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

jokebookservice1 wrote:

TheMonsterOfTheDeep wrote:

-snip-

Ok.

But the argument is still flawed.

Let me “prove” 0 is not a number

0 / 2 = 0

This is not true for any (other?) number.

Therefore 0 is not a number

I don't think that that is necessarily the flaw - I think the problem is that the post is implying that those properties are defined for infinity, which is an assumption and not necessarily true. First infinity needs to be defined in some way to have those properties.

Of course, if we are defining infinity as something that has those properties (i.e. infinity + 2 = infinity and infinity - 2 = infinity) it already by definition does not satisfy the definition of a number in the number system we are working in, so the proof has no real point.

Yeah but what about i xD