Infinity = 0.
You can not prove me wrong.
If I ask you to show me 3 you can take out three crayons and line them up to demonstrate.
You can do the same with any other number BUT if I asked you to show me infinity you wouldn't be able to show me by lining up your crayons. The same goes for 0. Therefore they are equal
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Interesting. This actually works rather well in a universe that is cyclic. You go infinitely far then you end up where you started.
This would immediately fix a lot of problems in theoretical physics.
Infinity isn't real
maths can't go on forever, you'll hit a limit, either by running out of matter to calculate/display the number or you'd run out of time saying/reading it
i wonder what the last number possible is though
what would Zeno say?
In higher category theory, this notion isn't so bad. You end up with something like a relation making the initial object the homotopy colimit of certain large diagrams, and end up with approximations to higher abelian categories (exhibitions of stable cohesion).
In some sense, spaces behave this way modulo homotopy. That's why the infinity sphere is contractible.
The formation of stable homotopy categories is one way to formalize the idea. In relation to the function field analogy and the Goodwillie calculus, it's why stabilization unifies the three poles 0,1, and ∞ that show up in dessin d'enfant theory, and you pass from ∞-topoi to stable ∞-topoi. If one is some sort of higher geometry over a field, the stabilization is higher geometry over the field on one element.
I'm writing a paper that looks at some of these ideas right now. Maybe this thread won't turn out to be pure shitposting?
very interesting idea but i am an undergraduate pleb with no good input
>Maybe this thread won't turn out to be pure shitposting?
I was literally shitposting though.
>tfw people don't even recognize your shitposts
I don't know if this is good or bad.
If I have infinitely many crayons, I'd just take infinitely long to line them up. That's not prohibited in your dumb example.
okay maybe you could take an infinte amount of time but if you include ALL NUMBERS(including negative numbers) then infinity is equal to 0.
...