There is an infinite series of infinities in which each infinity is infinitely larger than the infinity before it

There is an infinite series of infinities in which each infinity is infinitely larger than the infinity before it.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>There is an infinite series of infinities
yes

> in which each infinity is infinitely larger than the infinity before it.
no

Aleph numbers, darling.

>axiomatic statement
could you describe how you would construct them?
if it's already been done, link me

Aleph to the Aleph power.

Aleph to the Aleph power to the Aleph power.

Aleph to the Aleph power to the Aleph power to the Aleph power.

Aleph to the Aleph power to the Aleph power to the Aleph power to the Aleph power.

And so on.

>s in which each infinity is infinitely larger

Perhaps you mean larger? Please explain what "infinitely larger" means, you popsci faggot.

exponentiation is not well defined for infinite sets, even if it were that does not adequately describe the relationship between a countably infinite set and the cardinality of continuum

Of larger size in such a way that a 1/1 coordination of numbers of the series is impossible.

>Of larger size in such a way that a 1/1 coordination of numbers of the series is impossible.

So the set {1,2} is infinitely larger than {1}?

That's a fucking stupid definition if you ask me. Back to 3blue1brown

Would you fuck her for a hundred bucks?

You pedophile.

Of course fucking not.
>she has a baby
>someone actually put their penis into that amorphous creature

Fuck man, degeneracy is a hell of a drug. What kind of fetish combination must you have to find that deformed motherfucker attractive?

woah

i'd do it for free

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

In set theory infinities can have different cardinalities.

Wouldn't [math]x^n[/math] as x-> infinity be a trivial example?

>as x-> infinity be a trivial example?

I get that you're a stupid monkey, you didn't have to actually post a picture.

brainlet

She just looks weird in the photo. Her pussy game is off the charts bro.

go ahead and give it a try

>thinks saying it makes it true

>tfw it does

You must be god then. /s

>/s

>makes pseudo intellectual post that tries to sound smart just because it repeats the word "infinite" multiple times
>sees that it boils down to something rather simple
>gets mad and has to resort to name calling

Who are you quoting?

dumb dumb

OP if it's the same person, otherwise no one

>thought 1/8 was good enough odds

aww, your pea-brain is showing.

Oh right I forgot... according to people like you infinity is -1/12.

Well nevermind then.

Yes. What is your point

No point.

I just think it's kind of cool.

∞
∞+1
∞+2
...

>each infinity is infinitely larger than the infinity before it.
yes, like how there are infinitely more rational numbers than integers

>There is an infinite series of infinities
No, theres only like 5 levels of infinity in math.

"There are more neurons in your brain then there are atoms in the universe."
-Albert Einstein

There are more atoms in the universe than there are atoms outside the universe.

So what about an `infinite set'? Well, to begin with, you should say precisely what the term means. Okay, if you don't, at least someone should. Putting an adjective in front of a noun does not in itself make a mathematical concept. Cantor declared that an `infinite set' is a set which is not finite. Surely that is unsatisfactory, as Cantor no doubt suspected himself. It's like declaring that an `all-seeing Leprechaun' is a Leprechaun which can see everything. Or an `unstoppable mouse' is a mouse which cannot be stopped. These grammatical constructions do not create concepts, except perhaps in a literary or poetic sense. It is not clear that there are any sets that are not finite, just as it is not clear that there are any Leprechauns which can see everything, or that there are mice that cannot be stopped. Certainly in science there is no reason to suppose that `infinite sets' exist. Are there an infinite number of quarks or electrons in the universe? If physicists had to hazard a guess, I am confident the majority would say: No. But even if there were an infinite number of electrons, it is unreasonable to suppose that you can get an infinite number of them all together as a single `data object'.

...

Not really, all infinities are infinite but some stay higher in value than others. 1+2+3+4 is smaller than 1^2+2^2+3^2+4^2 because the n^2 one always stays at a higher value than the 1/n infinity.