Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Showerthoughts_Mod t1_iyeuw8q wrote

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

1

mysticpolka t1_iyevjdv wrote

No there’s not. Some infinities are larger than others. For example, the infinity between 0-1 is half the size of the infinity between 0-2.

6

Budybear_99 t1_iyew6yv wrote

Another way to express this is that negative infity to 0 has one finite limit and one infinite limit. Negative to positive infinity has two opposing infinite limits, meaning it is infinitely larger.

−1

Dr0110111001101111 t1_iyewx3s wrote

That's not how we measure the size of infinite sets.

The set of all even numbers is the same size as the set of all whole numbers. The set of whole numbers is smaller than the set of real numbers. The set of all real numbers on [0,1] is the same size as all real numbers.

We only use two "sizes" for infinite sets: countable and uncountable.

6

Dr0110111001101111 t1_iyezsop wrote

I mentioned it in another comment. When it comes to infinite sets, we have two sizes: countable and uncountable.

A countable set is a set where you can make a rule that binds each number to a number in the set of natural (counting) numbers. So for example, the set of positive, even numbers is countable because we can say "the first one is 2, the second one is 4, the third one is 6..." etc. There's an organized way to do this.

We can also make a similar rule for all even numbers: the first one is zero, second is 2, third is -2, fourth is 4, fifth is -4, and so on. This means that the set of all even numbers and the set of positive even numbers are both countable and therefore the same "size".

Things get weird when you try to do this for the real numbers. You can say the first one is 0, but then what comes next? What rule can you produce in the way I did above to be sure that you can "count" all of them? It turns out it's impossible. It's also impossible to do it just with the real numbers between 0 and 1. You can't even do it with the real numbers between 0 and 0.000001. As a result we say that these sets are all "uncountable" and therefore the same size.

As an interesting side note, it turns out that the rational numbers are countable, which surprised a lot of people. A mathematician named Cantor proved this with an ingenious strategy known as the diagonalization argument.

2

splitlikeasea t1_iyf5exa wrote

I think this is a bit complex for someone who made such a comment. Basically: If you slice up as part of your number and you get a finite amount of numbers, it's a countable infinity.

Take 15-30 range from -infinity to +infinity range of integes and you have finite amount of integer.

If you slice up a part of your numbers and there is still infinite amount of numbers in it, it's an uncountable infinity.

Take 1-2 on rational set and pick any part of it, say from 1.2 to 1.3. there are are infinite amount of numbers you can choose as you can just add another decimal to end.

Uncountable infinities are infinitely denser than countable infinities. And since every uncountable infinity is infinitely dense, all of them are incomparable to each other when it comes to size. Infinity is not a number but a virtual concept so it can go into unimaginable areas.

0

Dr0110111001101111 t1_iyf6x8y wrote

We don't usually think of "infinity" as a number, so it doesn't make sense to think about multiplying it by anything. It can seem like it's giving you some good intuition about why something is true, but there are several places where that line of thinking can lead you to some strange (and incorrect) results.

3

mysticpolka t1_iyf9cxh wrote

I think I understand the idea of countable and uncountable, but I don’t see why those would be the only two possible sizes. If two sets of infinities are countable, why wouldn’t one set be larger than the other? It seems perfectly logical to me that the infinity between 0-2 would be twice the size as infinity between 0-1.

1