Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Rudin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2015
Age: 21
Posts: 1,046
Location: Southern Ontario

24 Jul 2015, 8:55 pm

Infinity is an interesting concept there is more than one type of infinity. Some are bigger and smaller than others.

k+∞=∞
k*∞=∞

That infinity is called Aleph-1 and is the smallest infinity.

Imagine the universe is a sphere that has a infinite radius (Aleph 1) and a volume of 4/3* π*r^3 if you multiply the radius by 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 i.e have V=(4/3* π*(17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000r)^3) the volume is still equivalent.

An example of an infinite set is the natural numbers 1,2,3,4,5... there is an infinite number of elements in this set Aleph 1 is called the cardinality of the set (number of elements). The integers, fractions and algebraic numbers have the same cardinal.

But the real numbers i.e 1.23344356575675788....., 2.212564545454445......, pi, e, phi, 1, -1, -0.93817239121829312363712361873... etc. have a cardinality of Aleph 2.

Another set with a cardinality of aleph 2 is the complex numbers they are the same size as the real numbers.

The power set of set is the number of subsets in said set.

Example:

S={1,2,3,4,5...}

P(S)={1},{2},{3},..., {1,2}, {1,3}, {1,4},..., {2,1}, {2,3},..., {1,2,3}, {1,2,4},... a much larger set in case you didn't notice.

The cardinality function is denoted by card (S) where S is a set. card (P(s))=2^(card(S)) so if S has cardinality aleph-1 then P(s) has cardinality Aleph-2.

Very interesting stuff. You should read more about it it is very interesting especially the brilliant man who discoevred it.


_________________
"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with prime numbers."

-Paul Erdos

"There are two types of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister from looking at your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files."

-Bruce Schneider


slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

25 Jul 2015, 5:25 pm

Rudin wrote:
Infinity is an interesting concept there is more than one type of infinity. Some are bigger and smaller than others.

k+∞=∞
k*∞=∞

That infinity is called Aleph-1 and is the smallest infinity.

Imagine the universe is a sphere that has a infinite radius (Aleph 1) and a volume of 4/3* π*r^3 if you multiply the radius by 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 i.e have V=(4/3* π*(17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000r)^3) the volume is still equivalent.

An example of an infinite set is the natural numbers 1,2,3,4,5... there is an infinite number of elements in this set Aleph 1 is called the cardinality of the set (number of elements). The integers, fractions and algebraic numbers have the same cardinal.

But the real numbers i.e 1.23344356575675788....., 2.212564545454445......, pi, e, phi, 1, -1, -0.93817239121829312363712361873... etc. have a cardinality of Aleph 2.

Another set with a cardinality of aleph 2 is the complex numbers they are the same size as the real numbers.

The power set of set is the number of subsets in said set.

Example:

S={1,2,3,4,5...}

P(S)={1},{2},{3},..., {1,2}, {1,3}, {1,4},..., {2,1}, {2,3},..., {1,2,3}, {1,2,4},... a much larger set in case you didn't notice.

The cardinality function is denoted by card (S) where S is a set. card (P(s))=2^(card(S)) so if S has cardinality aleph-1 then P(s) has cardinality Aleph-2.

Very interesting stuff. You should read more about it it is very interesting especially the brilliant man who discoevred it.


Georg Cantor :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: one of history beautiful minds :!:



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

25 Jul 2015, 5:29 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Fnord wrote:
This is also called a Type 1 Multiverse in Max Tegmark's Taxonomy of Universes.
Wikipedia wrote:
"... an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of matter, almost all will differ from our Hubble volume. However, because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and even identical, configurations. ... Given infinite space, there would, in fact, be an infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the Universe ..."

Source: Wikipedia Article on Multiverse


Which logically means an infinite number of Fnords and infinities of near-Fnord variants in nearly identical hubble volumes...

Something entertaining to think about.


Dog help us all :!: (if there is more than one Fnord)



Rudin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2015
Age: 21
Posts: 1,046
Location: Southern Ontario

25 Jul 2015, 6:32 pm

slave wrote:
Rudin wrote:
Infinity is an interesting concept there is more than one type of infinity. Some are bigger and smaller than others.

k+∞=∞
k*∞=∞

That infinity is called Aleph-1 and is the smallest infinity.

Imagine the universe is a sphere that has a infinite radius (Aleph 1) and a volume of 4/3* π*r^3 if you multiply the radius by 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 i.e have V=(4/3* π*(17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000r)^3) the volume is still equivalent.

An example of an infinite set is the natural numbers 1,2,3,4,5... there is an infinite number of elements in this set Aleph 1 is called the cardinality of the set (number of elements). The integers, fractions and algebraic numbers have the same cardinal.

But the real numbers i.e 1.23344356575675788....., 2.212564545454445......, pi, e, phi, 1, -1, -0.93817239121829312363712361873... etc. have a cardinality of Aleph 2.

Another set with a cardinality of aleph 2 is the complex numbers they are the same size as the real numbers.

The power set of set is the number of subsets in said set.

Example:

S={1,2,3,4,5...}

P(S)={1},{2},{3},..., {1,2}, {1,3}, {1,4},..., {2,1}, {2,3},..., {1,2,3}, {1,2,4},... a much larger set in case you didn't notice.

The cardinality function is denoted by card (S) where S is a set. card (P(s))=2^(card(S)) so if S has cardinality aleph-1 then P(s) has cardinality Aleph-2.

Very interesting stuff. You should read more about it it is very interesting especially the brilliant man who discoevred it.


Georg Cantor :nerdy: :nerdy: :nerdy: one of history beautiful minds :!:


Yes. He had Bipolar Disorder which was most likely caused by harassment from his colleagues which regarded his work in set theory.


_________________
"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with prime numbers."

-Paul Erdos

"There are two types of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister from looking at your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files."

-Bruce Schneider


Rudin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2015
Age: 21
Posts: 1,046
Location: Southern Ontario

25 Jul 2015, 6:38 pm

eric76 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Or the mindbender that a subset of infinity is itself infinite even though it's smaller. 8O



The set of odd numbers is smaller than the set of whole numbers. But both are infinity.


It is very easy to map the set of whole numbers onto the odd numbers and the odd numbers onto the whole numbers.

Therefore, there is a 1:1 correspondence between the two sets and thus both have the same number of elements.

Consider this:

The odd numbers are the positive integers not divisible by 2: { 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, ... }
The Whole numbers are the postive integers and 0: { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... }

Let O be the set of odd numbers and W be the set of whole numbers.

Define f :W->O by f(x)=2x+1 for all x in W. Since for every x in W, there is an f(x) in W, we have that |O| >= |W|.

Define g:O->W by g(y)=(y-1)/2 for all y in O. Since for every y in O, there is a g(y) in W, we have that |O|<=|W|.

Thus, |O|=|W|.


Yes exactly. The person the OP quoted is actually wrong, there is the same number of each.

Take {1,2,3,4...} and {1,3,5,7,...}. Two sets are equal if there are the same number of elements or as eric76 said there is a 1-1 correspondence between the elements in each set i.e.

1 2 3 4 . . .

1 3 5 7 . . .

Same number in each. Cantor's diagonal proof shows the rationals (fractions + and -) are equivalent in cardinal to the integers and natural numbers.


_________________
"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with prime numbers."

-Paul Erdos

"There are two types of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister from looking at your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files."

-Bruce Schneider


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 5:28 am

Rudin wrote:
Infinity is an interesting concept there is more than one type of infinity. Some are bigger and smaller than others.

k+∞=∞
k*∞=∞

That infinity is called Aleph-1 and is the smallest infinity.

Imagine the universe is a sphere that has a infinite radius (Aleph 1) and a volume of 4/3* π*r^3 if you multiply the radius by 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 i.e have V=(4/3* π*(17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000r)^3) the volume is still equivalent.

An example of an infinite set is the natural numbers 1,2,3,4,5... there is an infinite number of elements in this set Aleph 1 is called the cardinality of the set (number of elements). The integers, fractions and algebraic numbers have the same cardinal.

But the real numbers i.e 1.23344356575675788....., 2.212564545454445......, pi, e, phi, 1, -1, -0.93817239121829312363712361873... etc. have a cardinality of Aleph 2.

Another set with a cardinality of aleph 2 is the complex numbers they are the same size as the real numbers.

The power set of set is the number of subsets in said set.

Example:

S={1,2,3,4,5...}

P(S)={1},{2},{3},..., {1,2}, {1,3}, {1,4},..., {2,1}, {2,3},..., {1,2,3}, {1,2,4},... a much larger set in case you didn't notice.

The cardinality function is denoted by card (S) where S is a set. card (P(s))=2^(card(S)) so if S has cardinality aleph-1 then P(s) has cardinality Aleph-2.

Very interesting stuff. You should read more about it it is very interesting especially the brilliant man who discoevred it.


The mathematics are incorrect on a cosmological perspective. Unless you give a GLOBAL k=1 solution to the FLRW metric, you are assuming an incorrect spherical local solution.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1026
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...

22 Jun 2016, 6:17 am

This universe is actually flat (←this model is even in the mainstream←) and is simply one "layer" that represents existence (←current "perception" that I have in terms of how to describe existence←). Each layer is somehow separated out by ranges of frequencies by some "irrational" formula (←another one of my impressions based on my experiences/observations←). For now, you just have to work with the detectable frequencies, like infra-red, and ultra-violet, etc (things like germs/bacteria/viruses were once undetectable, but microscopes eventually vindicated the woo-woo/quack for his at-the-time absurd claims, cats/dogs can hear/see things which humans can now detect with scientific/technological-equipment, heck, even strange creature-looking things have been filmed in the infra-red/ultra-violet spectrums in the SKY, and much more will probably be discovered eventually when enough people bother to explore and search for evidence of their existence even in the face of multitudes who insist that anything beyond what we can currently observe is somehow impossible).

Also, according to some science-article or equivalent that I read or came across a few years ago, this universe is considered to possibly originate from the "information-leaks" that are Black-Holes, something that you can read about if you find the articles or whatever they were about Stephen Hawkings losing his own bet.


_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.


CryptoNerd
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2016
Age: 1934
Gender: Male
Posts: 229
Location: The bash shell

22 Jun 2016, 8:26 am

The universe is not infinite. Picture a steadily inflating balloon with galaxies on it. This is the universe. Now imagine you're on the surface of this balloon, inside one of the galaxies. It's impossible to reach the "end" of the universe because you're on a sphere; a sphere has no end. There is no end, but that doesn't mean it's infinite. Now picture the same scenario, except now the universe is on the surface of an expanding 4-dimensional hyperspere, and the surface of the hypersphere is 3-dimensional, with the fourth dimension being time and corresponding to the distance from the center of the hypersphere. Do you understand now?



marcb0t
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: Washington

22 Jun 2016, 8:47 am

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
Ecclesiastes 3:11

... The Lord , who stretches out the heavens, who lays the foundation of the earth, and who forms the human spirit within a person, declares:
Zechariah 12:1


_________________
The cutest most lovable little rob0t on Earth! (^.^)


BaalChatzaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,050
Location: Monroe Twp. NJ

22 Jun 2016, 9:11 am

CryptoNerd wrote:
The universe is not infinite. Picture a steadily inflating balloon with galaxies on it. This is the universe. Now imagine you're on the surface of this balloon, inside one of the galaxies. It's impossible to reach the "end" of the universe because you're on a sphere; a sphere has no end. There is no end, but that doesn't mean it's infinite. Now picture the same scenario, except now the universe is on the surface of an expanding 4-dimensional hyperspere, and the surface of the hypersphere is 3-dimensional, with the fourth dimension being time and corresponding to the distance from the center of the hypersphere. Do you understand now?


The surface of a sphere has no boundary point in the surface topology. The interior of a sphere has a boundary, namely the surface of the sphere.


_________________
Socrates' Last Words: I drank what!! !?????


Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 11:13 am

Ban-Dodger wrote:
This universe is actually flat (←this model is even in the mainstream←) and is simply one "layer" that represents existence (←current "perception" that I have in terms of how to describe existence←). Each layer is somehow separated out by ranges of frequencies by some "irrational" formula (←another one of my impressions based on my experiences/observations←). For now, you just have to work with the detectable frequencies, like infra-red, and ultra-violet, etc (things like germs/bacteria/viruses were once undetectable, but microscopes eventually vindicated the woo-woo/quack for his at-the-time absurd claims, cats/dogs can hear/see things which humans can now detect with scientific/technological-equipment, heck, even strange creature-looking things have been filmed in the infra-red/ultra-violet spectrums in the SKY, and much more will probably be discovered eventually when enough people bother to explore and search for evidence of their existence even in the face of multitudes who insist that anything beyond what we can currently observe is somehow impossible).

Also, according to some science-article or equivalent that I read or came across a few years ago, this universe is considered to possibly originate from the "information-leaks" that are Black-Holes, something that you can read about if you find the articles or whatever they were about Stephen Hawkings losing his own bet.


The poster's claim that I quoted is incorrect in relation to relativity.


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

22 Jun 2016, 11:45 am

Deltaville:

I quit reading at the "simply one "layer" that represents existence". It just didn't seem worth reading any further.



Deltaville
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 941
Location: SystemShock Universe

22 Jun 2016, 11:53 am

eric76 wrote:
Deltaville:

I quit reading at the "simply one "layer" that represents existence". It just didn't seem worth reading any further.


I have bad social skills! Who do you agree with?


_________________
Sebastian

"Don't forget to floss." - Darkwing Duck


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

22 Jun 2016, 12:55 pm

The comment you noted as "incorrect in relation to relativity" didn't make any sense at all. You were entirely correct.



marcb0t
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Apr 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: Washington

22 Jun 2016, 1:09 pm

Deltaville wrote:
The poster's claim that I quoted is incorrect in relation to relativity.

There are some elements that kinda make sense as he was trying to make a point.

However, the "single layer" universe thing doesn't seem to make sense. Perhaps he poorly worded his thoughts, and meant something else? I do that sometimes.

By the way, your avatar is unbearably cute! :3


_________________
The cutest most lovable little rob0t on Earth! (^.^)


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

23 Jun 2016, 2:13 pm

eric76 wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
Or the mindbender that a subset of infinity is itself infinite even though it's smaller. 8O



The set of odd numbers is smaller than the set of whole numbers. But both are infinity.


It is very easy to map the set of whole numbers onto the odd numbers and the odd numbers onto the whole numbers.

Therefore, there is a 1:1 correspondence between the two sets and thus both have the same number of elements.

Consider this:

The odd numbers are the positive integers not divisible by 2: { 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, ... }
The Whole numbers are the postive integers and 0: { 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... }

Let O be the set of odd numbers and W be the set of whole numbers.

Define f :W->O by f(x)=2x+1 for all x in W. Since for every x in W, there is an f(x) in W, we have that |O| >= |W|.

Define g:O->W by g(y)=(y-1)/2 for all y in O. Since for every y in O, there is a g(y) in W, we have that |O|<=|W|.

Thus, |O|=|W|.

Even then, there is still infinite that are bigger that other. Take the natural numbers; 1,2,3,4,5,6... and so on. There is a infinity of natural numbers. Yet, only by adding a decimal; 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, .... and so on, you are multiplying that infinite by ten. And you can multiply this result by ten a infinite number of times. There is a infinity of infinite.