Why is ∞(infinite) not considered a number?

I mean, if zero is considered a number, it sounds reasonable to consider infinite a number too.

**Edited by gasto, 01 June 2014 - 03:28 PM.**

Started by gasto, Jun 01 2014 03:27 PM

39 replies to this topic

Posted 01 June 2014 - 03:27 PM

Why is ∞(infinite) not considered a number?

I mean, if zero is considered a number, it sounds reasonable to consider infinite a number too.

**Edited by gasto, 01 June 2014 - 03:28 PM.**

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600, 2.4 GHz. 3GB RAM. ATI Radeon HD 3400.

Sponsor:

Posted 01 June 2014 - 03:45 PM

It depends on what field of mathematics you're talking about. There is a field that works with infinity as a "number." Considering the Arabic basis of numbers, a system of powers of ten placeholders, zero indicates that the number represented has no component of the power of ten at the position the zero occupies. I.e., 1023 = 1*1000 + (nothing)*100 + 2*10 + 3*1. In that context, a sequence of multiples of powers of ten, infinity is of no use. It would not have meaning as a power of ten in a specific position in an Arabic base number.

In Roman numerals, there is no concept of zero as it is not a placeholder-type system.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

In Roman numerals, there is no concept of zero as it is not a placeholder-type system.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Please don't PM me with questions. Post them in the forums for *everyone's* benefit, and I can embarrass myself publicly.

You don't forget how to play when you grow old; you grow old when you forget how to play.

Posted 01 June 2014 - 03:57 PM

Infinity is a concept and doesn't work like a number. If you add 1 to infinity you still have infinity. On the other hand if you add 1 to 0 you get 1.

Look at it a different way - zero has *a specific *place on a number line. Where is infinity? You would say the number of points between zero and one is infinite and not *a specific* point.

Posted 01 June 2014 - 03:59 PM

Infinity is a concept and doesn't work like a number. If you add 1 to infinity you still have infinity. On the other hand if you add 1 to 0 you get 1.

Look at it a different way - zero has

a specificplace on a number line. Where is infinity? You would say the number of points between zero and one is infinite and nota specificpoint.

Actually, if you add one to infinity you get ∞+1=∞

**Edited by gasto, 01 June 2014 - 04:05 PM.**

Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600, 2.4 GHz. 3GB RAM. ATI Radeon HD 3400.

Posted 01 June 2014 - 04:01 PM

Well, answer this questions and you might get the answer:

1 - What integer number comes before 0? And what integer number comes before infinity?

2 - What integer number comes after 0? And what integer number comes after infinity?

Basically, infinity means "a number bigger that any number you could think of", so you can't name ONE integer that comes exactly before or after.

When you say "why isn't it a number if zero is a number?" it doesn't make sense. How does zero being a number gives you enough information to conclude that infinity is a number too? Do you know about the mathematical concepts that define 0 and infinity? You can find hundreds of results in google about why 0 IS a number and why infinity isn't, if you want to suggest that infinity read some results and think again if that makes sense.

Maybe you did the basic operations with integers and infinity and tought "hey, this could be set as a rule: ANYTHING + infinity = infinity, ANYTHING - infinity = infinity", but it doesn't mean you've discovered something new. When you work with infinity you're really working with limits, and those are the rules that are beign applied, you can't do basic operations with it.

Infinity is a concept and doesn't work like a number. If you add 1 to infinity you still have infinity. On the other hand if you add 1 to 0 you get 1.

Look at it a different way - zero has

a specificplace on a number line. Where is infinity? You would say the number of points between zero and one is infinite and nota specificpoint.Actually, if you add one to infinity you get ∞+1

So... you get a "the next number after infinity"? a number bigger than infinity? Wouldn't that also be infinity? What dfinition of infinity are you using? Maybe that explains it all...

**Edited by DiegoSLTS, 01 June 2014 - 04:02 PM.**

Posted 01 June 2014 - 05:33 PM

Zero compared to Zero is equal. There is only one value for 0, and that is 0.

Infinity compared to Infinity can be equal, greater, or less. "x²" grows at much higher rater than "x", and as such the infinity of the limit x² is "greater" (in a sort of speak) than that of "x".

In this case, if we try to subtract Inf - Inf; we could end up with x - x² which has a limit at *negative* infinity, or with x² - x; which has a limit at *positive* infinity. Although we're looking at the same symbol ∞ on both sides, turns out ∞ - ∞ is not the same as ∞ - ∞

Infinity is a concept, not a number.

Posted 01 June 2014 - 06:37 PM

In a certain sense, Infinity can't be *a* number, because it is all numbers at once. There is no single value for infinity, There are also multiple infinities, and some infinities are demonstrably larger than other infinities. Eg, take the set of all odd integers and the set of all even integers. Clearly they are equal in size, but if you take the set of all integers, it is the sum of the odd integers set and even integers set, and is thus larger than either of them.

Currently working on an open world survival RPG - For info check out my Development blog: ByteWrangler

Posted 01 June 2014 - 09:28 PM

"Infinity" means several different things, some of which allows you to think of it as a number:

* If you are measuring how big sets are, you define two sets to be as big as each other if there is a bijection between them, and you say a set is infinite if it is as big as one of its proper subsets (in other words, if you add one element that wasn't in the set, you get a set exactly as large as the original). But thinking of the cardinality of an infinite set as being simply "infinity" doesn't really cut it, because there is a large collection of different sizes of infinite sets.

* If you are thinking of the behavior of sequences of real numbers in the limit, it is convenient to extend the real line to include +infinity and -infinity, so you can say that a sequence has limit +infinity or -infinity, meaning for any bound you propose, there is a point from which all the elements of the sequence are beyond your proposed bound.

* If you are dealing with the slope of a straight line, it makes sense to think of it as a real number or infinity (a single infinity, in contrast with the previous bullet point). In this case we are dealing with the projective real line. There is also an analogous "projective complex line", which consists of the complex numbers plus a number called infinity (this is also known as the Riemann sphere).

* Any topological space can be extended into a compact topological space by adding a single point called "infinity" (Alexandroff one-point compactification).

* The surreal numbers contain a number "omega" that you could call "infinity" instead (they call it "omega" because it is one very specific type of infinity: the first infinite ordinal). However, these surreal numbers are kind of weird, and they contain notions like "infinity minus 5", "infinity times 3", "infinity squared", and even "square root of infinity".

I would say the notions of infinity from the second, third and fifth bullet points fit well into considering it as a number. Notice how the floating-point representations of numbers on a computer typically include +infinity and -infinity, which leads me to believe they are based around the notion of infinity from the second bullet point.

* If you are measuring how big sets are, you define two sets to be as big as each other if there is a bijection between them, and you say a set is infinite if it is as big as one of its proper subsets (in other words, if you add one element that wasn't in the set, you get a set exactly as large as the original). But thinking of the cardinality of an infinite set as being simply "infinity" doesn't really cut it, because there is a large collection of different sizes of infinite sets.

* If you are thinking of the behavior of sequences of real numbers in the limit, it is convenient to extend the real line to include +infinity and -infinity, so you can say that a sequence has limit +infinity or -infinity, meaning for any bound you propose, there is a point from which all the elements of the sequence are beyond your proposed bound.

* If you are dealing with the slope of a straight line, it makes sense to think of it as a real number or infinity (a single infinity, in contrast with the previous bullet point). In this case we are dealing with the projective real line. There is also an analogous "projective complex line", which consists of the complex numbers plus a number called infinity (this is also known as the Riemann sphere).

* Any topological space can be extended into a compact topological space by adding a single point called "infinity" (Alexandroff one-point compactification).

* The surreal numbers contain a number "omega" that you could call "infinity" instead (they call it "omega" because it is one very specific type of infinity: the first infinite ordinal). However, these surreal numbers are kind of weird, and they contain notions like "infinity minus 5", "infinity times 3", "infinity squared", and even "square root of infinity".

I would say the notions of infinity from the second, third and fifth bullet points fit well into considering it as a number. Notice how the floating-point representations of numbers on a computer typically include +infinity and -infinity, which leads me to believe they are based around the notion of infinity from the second bullet point.

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:41 AM

If you think like a mathematician, you can make your own definitions (as long as you take the consequences). So you can define infinity as a number if you like (e.g. as the sum of a sufficient number of ones so that it becomes larger than any finite number). And you'll end up with the surreal or hyperreal numbers. You may ask, are those numbers real? Well, are the real numbers real? And are the imaginary numbers just imaginary? Hmmm...

[edit]

As for the original question:

Assume x is a positive integer that is greater than any other integer. Let y = x + 1. Then y is greater than x (by rules of addition). But x was supposed to be greater than y. Contradiction. Assumption was false. So there can't be such an integer x.

**Edited by Felix Ungman, 02 June 2014 - 12:51 AM.**

openwar - the real-time tactical war-game platform

Posted 02 June 2014 - 02:58 AM

There are ideas how to extend the field of real numbers to include infinity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line

(The German article is more elaborate: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erweiterte_reelle_Zahl)

However, the usual arithmetic rules would no longer hold in such a field, because this set is no longer an ordered field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordered_field

So in practice it seem to be not very useful to work with such a definition.

Related question:

From a mathematical point of view: If you die young, are you longer dead?

Posted 02 June 2014 - 09:27 AM

You can easily place "0" on a ruler, right? So it is easy to see that "0" is a number.

If infinity was a "number", where would you put that on the ruler?

For infinity to be a "number", it had to have a fixed position on this ruler, right? To have a fixed position, Infinity would need to have an upper limit -- but no matter how big of a number you can think of, there is always a number that is bigger. In fact, there is an infinity of numbers bigger than any numbers you can think of. Infinity just means that something goes on and on forever, never ending. Infinity is not a number, but just something to describe that something tends to grow or shrink without bounds, when used in mathematics. It is an entirely different concept altogether.

**Edited by aregee, 02 June 2014 - 09:32 AM.**

Posted 02 June 2014 - 11:34 AM

Assume x is a positive integer that is greater than any other integer. Let y = x + 1. Then y is greater than x (by rules of addition). But x was supposed to be greater than y. Contradiction. Assumption was false. So there can't be such an integer x.

Or the conclusion could be that this particular definition of infinity is not very good.

If there is such a thing as "infinity" in a set of numbers, it most definitely won't be a positive integer. The smallest infinite ordinal "omega" is greater than any integer. But of course "omega" itself is not an integer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:04 PM

One thing that hasn't been mentioned much (besides Álvaro) is *which* infinity you're talking about. Not all infinities are the same. For example, there's Aleph-0* and Aleph-1**.

So when you say "is infinity a number" one valid response is "which infinity are you talking about?"

It's also important to note that in spite of us sometimes treating infinity like a number, it doesn't match our definition of number: "an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure,*representing a particular quantity* and used in counting and making calculations and for showing order in a series or for identification." There isn't a specific, particular quantity represented by infinity.

If you just go back and look at the core definitions of number and infinity, you'll see that infinity doesn't quite match the requirements to be a number.

*Aleph-0 is the number of integers (and, interestingly, there are the same number of positive integers as there are negative*and* positive integers).

**Aleph-1 may or may not be the number of real numbers; we cannot prove nor disprove this, but it's important to note that Aleph-1 is greater than Aleph-0.

So when you say "is infinity a number" one valid response is "which infinity are you talking about?"

It's also important to note that in spite of us sometimes treating infinity like a number, it doesn't match our definition of number: "an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure,

If you just go back and look at the core definitions of number and infinity, you'll see that infinity doesn't quite match the requirements to be a number.

*Aleph-0 is the number of integers (and, interestingly, there are the same number of positive integers as there are negative

**Aleph-1 may or may not be the number of real numbers; we cannot prove nor disprove this, but it's important to note that Aleph-1 is greater than Aleph-0.

[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:14 PM

Perhaps indicating some kind of overflow in the substrate of the universe, or that something akin to floating point error exists even for the humble integer when the values are extreme?My favorite is what happens when you try to add all the integers -- 0 + 1 + 2 + 3... all the way to infinity.

The intuitive answer is infinity, but it's also possible to get the answer of -^{1}/_{12}th

Posted 02 June 2014 - 12:25 PM

Nah, it's a bug in the universe's FPU, similar to the Pentium FDIV bug. Send bug reports to your nearest church/chapel/synagogue/mosque/temple/etc.Perhaps indicating some kind of overflow in the substrate of the universe, or that something akin to floating point error exists even for the humble integer when the values are extreme?My favorite is what happens when you try to add all the integers -- 0 + 1 + 2 + 3... all the way to infinity.

The intuitive answer is infinity, but it's also possible to get the answer of -^{1}/_{12}th

[ I was ninja'd 71 times before I stopped counting a long time ago ] [ f.k.a. MikeTacular ] [ My Blog ] [ SWFer: Gaplessly looped MP3s in your Flash games ]

Posted 02 June 2014 - 04:48 PM

Infinitely smaller if we divide by infinity.

Infinitely larger if we multiply by infinity.

Both results can be compared if one is larger than the other, so both must be numbers if we are able compare if infinitely small is less than infinitely large...right?

Posted 02 June 2014 - 06:44 PM

My favorite is what happens when you try to add all the integers -- 0 + 1 + 2 + 3... all the way to infinity.

The intuitive answer is infinity, but it's also possible to get the answer of -

^{1}/_{12}th

This is in fact, not true. If you evaluate the sum of all the natural numbers (1 + 2 + 3 + 4...) it is infinitely large. To evaluate this sum to have a value of -^{1}/_{12}th is not really correct. =/

If you want to learn the mathematical reasoning behind why the answer is infinity, but why you could evaluate a similar looking sum to have a value of -^{1}/_{12}th, I suggest looking up the zeta function.If you have an interest in maths, I really recommend it, there are some surprising results and really beautiful mathematics to be found there. If you don't want to learn the maths, just take it as 1 + 2 + 3 + 4... = infinity

Both results can be compared if one is larger than the other, so both must be numbers if we are able compare if infinitely small is less than infinitely large...right?

No, not right. Infinities can be compared to each other, but this does not mean they must be a number. Think of it like this - I can compare two shirts and select my favourite, but that does not mean I am evaluating each to a numerical value. Not everything that can be compared must be a number.

Posted 02 June 2014 - 06:56 PM

This is in fact, not true. If you evaluate the sum of all the natural numbers (1 + 2 + 3 + 4...) it is infinitely large. To evaluate this sum to have a value of -1/12th is not really correct. =/

If you want to learn the mathematical reasoning behind why the answer is infinity, but why you could evaluate a similar looking sum to have a value of -1/12th, I suggest looking up the zeta function.If you have an interest in maths, I really recommend it, there are some surprising results and really beautiful mathematics to be found there. If you don't want to learn the maths, just take it as 1 + 2 + 3 + 4... = infinity

I'm not a mathematician, but according to wikipedia and wolframalpha, ζ(−1) = -1/12

It might not be true under every system of mathematics, but it's certainly a correct answer under some of them. It's even used in physical calculations where the mathematical prediction matches up correctly with observations!