The Theory of Infinite Distance. - General

A theory is all this will ever be, in reality there is no infinite. You are a spec of dust in 1000 football stadiums.

[QUOTE=admiral_Cola;17349196]A theory is all this will ever be, in reality there is no infinite. You are a spec of dust in 1000 football stadiums.[/QUOTE] Well actually calculus already explains what the OP was trying to figure out, as well as infinite things.

[QUOTE=Valnar;17349255]Well actually calculus already explains what the OP was trying to figure out, as well as infinite things.[/QUOTE] oh you said calculus.... how kinky....

[QUOTE=john_pelphre;17346396]Pentameter. Hexameter. Septameter.[/QUOTE] These aren't real units. [QUOTE=john_pelphre;17346396]Picometer. Nanometer.[/QUOTE] And if you were trying do them in descending order, these are the wrong way round.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17348510]If you bounce bounce a ball, and each time it bounces back up it reaches 1/2 of of the origional height, and you measure that ball, you will never reach a specific number. Say you drop it from 1 foot, and then it goes to .5, and .25, and then .125 and then add it, it'll reach to 1 + .5 + .25 + .125 + .0625 + .03125 + 0.015625 = 1.984375 ect ect ect. Eventually the number will keep getting BIGGER, but 1.98 will never become 1.99 or 2. you'll get to something like .0000000000125 and then .0000000000000065, but its irrelevant. All it is is more decimals.[/QUOTE] Incorrect. The harmonic series diverges to infinity (albeit very slowly) Proof:[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics[/url])

So what's the point of the thread? It doesn't prove any argument, nor it presents anything new.

I rated you a clock because this "THEORY" which is actually more like a (perceived) paradox has been around since the ancient Greeks.

[QUOTE=Sirdangolot5;17351452]I rated you a clock because this "THEORY" which is actually more like a (perceived) paradox has been around since the ancient Greeks.[/QUOTE] Congratulations. You are the very first person to do this, I hope you enjoy yourself. Also, the arguments in the last 2 pages seem to be more complex than the subject of the OP.

This stupid argument is blown away by the epsilon/delta definition of convergence.

Jesus this thread is a rate nuke. Reminds me of asymptote discussion in 7th grade, one kid was convinced that if the rabbit kept

It's not the first time I've heard of this issue, and I understand it. What baffles me completely though is it's relevance and real life application. If I'm at position A and I want to get to position B, which is 3kms away from position A, if I move at a constant speed of 3km/h I'll be at B in one hour. No more, no less, and there'll be no infinity between me and B after that hour passes. I find this "theorem" as a classic example of how mathematicians are continuously trying to find real world applications for their senseless theorems. It's retarded.

[QUOTE=Andy101;17351143]Incorrect. The harmonic series diverges to infinity (albeit very slowly) Proof:[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(mathematics[/url])[/QUOTE] He explained [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^2}[/img] which indeed converges against 2. But of course the harmonic series [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n} \rightarrow \infty[/img]. But this was not related. Actually [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/?\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^m} \rightarrow \infty[/img] for [img]http://math.daggeringcats.com/? m \leq 1[/img] [editline]11:45AM[/editline] [QUOTE=PacificV2;17351597]I find this "theorem" as a classic example of how mathematicians are continuously trying to find real world applications for their senseless theorems. It's retarded.[/QUOTE] Try to do science without mathematic basics like analysis or linear algebra. You can't. So better be glad math is a good fundamental basic for science or destroy all your current modern technology in your house if you think "math is useless". Because they are based on it. Also, you may find this interesting (if not posted before): [img]http://www.daggeringcats.com/images/purity.png[/img] This has one fundamental statement: Whatever you do, it underlays a mathematical concept.

Congratulations OP, you learned a paradox.

I didn't say "math is useless", I only said mathematicians continuously try to find a ridiculous application for much of their theories. Leave that to the physicists, they're much better at it. Even if physics is just applied maths.

you have bad writing sir, and i didn't quite under stand, but dividing 1 by 0 is the same as not dividing at all, not that big of a mystery. a square root of anything negative is impossible since the result would be positive and there's no way to convert positive to negative following the theories of : -+ = - +-= - ++=+ --=- dividing "-" by" -" or square rooting negative numbers will only yield invalid results. and a university level teacher would be so highly educated and accustomed to this system that he wouldn't know that the result is +, he would argument it is invalid wich is true, but not in kid/teen school right? was that what you said? or did i bomb your theory to hell? BTW, your "theory" has been thaught at college for 50 years

We're always a tiny distance from every object, thanks to electromagnectic fields in atoms or some shit.

I remember I got a question in my maths test regarding the graph (its called a hyperbola). It was a regions question, and I didn't know what to do cause you're sposed to substitute x=0 and y=0 into the equation, so I got 0=x/0, which you can't do. Also, a cool note (it confused me), for all those who know a bit about basic graphs, if you want to find where a graph crosses the y axis, you let x=0, and if you want to find where a graph crosses the x axis, you let y=0. Say we want to find the x axis of the graph y=1/x (given example in OP). let y=0 0 = 1/x times both sides by x x = 1 therefore, the graph should cross the x axis at 1, right?

[QUOTE=shill le 2nd;17348816]Does that come on a t-shirt?[/QUOTE] Yes, and there is another one of a Scientist riding a horrifically large amoeba.

It totally depends on what you consider to be the location you want to go to. Let's say I want to go 100 m in a direction. And I say that my destination is inside the circle on the ground over there. The circle is 1 m in diameter. As soon as i step inside the circle, I have reached my destination. Don't get me wrong, I really understand what you mean, and I've thought about it my self, but i was just pointing out that: "You are always some distance from your destination" is wrong. You can always travel to the exact location you are given. If the location I am given is 0,000000001 cm wide and 100 meters away... As soon as I have walked those 100 meters and placed my foot over the location, then i have reached it. No matter how small it is, you can always reach it by traveling the whole distance. There is actually a paradox on this. I don't remember the name of it, but it basically goes like this: "You can never reach you location by traveling half the distance each time." Basically it says that if you want to go 100 m, and travel half each time, then you wont ever get there, cos it will be like 100 - 50 - 25 12,5 - 6,25 etc etc etc. That's basically what you said, but here is an advice... Travel the WHOLE distance at once. A location that is impossible to reach cannot exist. EDIT: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes[/url] Here's the paradox on wiki.

The solution to this problem lies within some work done over the last century on set theory, which escapes me now, but I'm sure has been previously mentioned within this thread Also time [b]isn't[/b] infinitely diivisable, the smallest length of time is [b]Plank Time[/b]: the length of time it takes for light to travel the distance of a [i]plank length[/i]. In this sense, both space and time are pixelated.

Here's something interesing I was taught during one of my lectures at university that is similar to this... Imagine firing an arrow from point A to it's target at point B. Now, in order for the arrow to reach the target at point B, it must reach the halfway point between A and B, which we will call point C. From point C, the situation is the same as before; the arrow must reach the halway point between point C and A before it can reach point A, and so on. The problem is, this means that theoretically, the arrow will always need to reach the halfway point before it can reach the target, which means it can never reach the target. Of course, we know this is complete bullshit; all we need to do is grab a bow and arrow and shoot at a target. Lo and behold, the arrow will reach it's target, despite the previously mentioned theory saying it isn't possible.

[QUOTE=Kade;17352720]The solution to this problem lies within some work done over the last century on set theory, which escapes me now, but I'm sure has been previously mentioned within this thread Also time [b]isn't[/b] infinitely diivisable, the smallest length of time is [b]Plank Time[/b]: the length of time it takes for light to travel the distance of a [i]plank length[/i]. In this sense, both space and time are pixelated.[/QUOTE] Well, the more important bit is that distance isn't infinitely divisible and the smallest distance is the Planck length (or so we suspect) but this is correct, yes. [editline]10:07AM[/editline] [QUOTE=David29;17352786]Here's something interesing I was taught during one of my lectures at university that is simmilar to this... Imagine firing an arrow from point A to it's target at point B. Now, in order for the arrow to reach the target at point B, it must reach the halfway point between A and B, which we will call point C. From point C, the situation is the same as before; the arrow must reach the halway point between point C and A before it can reach point A, and so on. The problem is, this means that theoretically, the arrow will always need to reach the halfway point before it can reach the target, which means it can never reach the target. Of course, we know this is complete bullshit; all we need to do is grab a bow and arrow and shoot at a target. Lo and behold, the arrow will reach it's target, despite the previously mentioned theory saying it isn't possible.[/QUOTE] That's why it's called Zeno's Paradox. We can easily see that it's not true, and yet mathematically it seems as though it should be.

[B]Fuck you![/B] you just wrecked my brain I had to get my nabour to translate the giberish into words for facepunch. (not really):smug:

We've been taught about this last year. A theory is a theory, and only a theory. End.

[QUOTE=i_speel_good;17353060]We've been taught about this last year. A theory is a theory, and only a theory. End.[/QUOTE] It's not even an actual theory. It's a paradox.

Everyone knows about reciprocal graphs. In all seriousness, this situation could never happen, so there's no real point in attempting to apply it to real life. Unless there is a real life situation in which a reciprocal graph could apply?

It's pretty interesting, but irrelevant. Philosophers who still bothers with this needs to move on.

[QUOTE=Sh33p;17353075]Everyone knows about reciprocal graphs. In all seriousness, this situation could never happen, so there's no real point in attempting to apply it to real life. Unless there is a real life situation in which a reciprocal graph could apply?[/QUOTE] The whole point is that it doesn't apply to real life and the question is why does it not?

[QUOTE=john_pelphre;17346396]I don't know if this have been theorized or not, but I though of something. [img]http://imgkk.com/i/BhCpiC.png[/img] This is a graph. This graph is special for one reason. It will continue for ever, but will never cross the Y-axis or X-axis. Ever. It goes on forever, but never contacts the axi's. It will go to the the smallest interval, but will never touch "0", Why? Mathematically speaking, the reason this graph will never touch the axis is because is the graph of the equation (1/x). The reason it can never touch 0, is we have no clue what happens a number, such as 1, is divided 0 times. You also can have a square root of a negative number, because the answer becomes imaginary, but I digress. The reason for this? Well, you can use graphs to show relation to things in real life, and I began to wonder. What happens if this graph is related to real life? Now, lets use an example. Say you are walking to a destination one kilometer away. It takes 20 minutes to get there, average walking speed 3 Kilometer per hour, just as an example. . So, after 19 minutes, 30 seconds, your only about a meter away. So, you keep walking. Your one decimeter away. Continue. Your a centimeter away. Than, a millimeter. Pentameter. Hexameter. Septameter. Picometer. Nanometer. You can continue forever, to the nth-meter. There is an infinite measure of how accurate, and you can continue forever. There is a infinte distance you can be. From .01, to .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 Then how can you reach a destination, in anytime? Well, people round everything to set amounts. Such as you wouldn't say 1000 meters, you most likely would say 1 kilo. Not 100 centi-seconds, but one second. Its weird, but if you think about it. You are always some distance from your destination, even if it is 1 x 10^24 meters, or a yoctometer, away.[/QUOTE] If you walk over a line, you're not going to be 0.000000000000001 nanometers away from the line, you're going to cross the line. As is with the graph, if it is not parallell with the axes, it WILL cross them at one point or another. And also infinity is just a model, it can not be replicated and it does not exist in real life. [b]even if it is 1 x 10^24 meters,[/b] I thought we were talking about nanometers here, not a billion million million kilometers. Maybe you meant 1x10^-24M. This doesn't make sense, if you're sprinting, you're not going to SLOW DOWN for the sole purpose of being 1 picometer away from the line, you're going to speed past it. Sure you can think that you can keep on measuring the distance between your shoe and the finish line until they're like a picometer apart, and then keep going until the distance is infinitely small, that's just the thing, I don't remember there being anything that's infinitely small.Since real life doesn't work like that, you'll just go over the line.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;17353235]If you walk over a line, you're not going to be 0.000000000000001 nanometers away from the line, you're going to cross the line. As is with the graph, if it is not parallell with the axes, it WILL cross them at one point or another. And also infinity is just a model, it can not be replicated and it does not exist in real life. [b]even if it is 1 x 10^24 meters,[/b] I thought we were talking about nanometers here, not a billion million million kilometers. Maybe you meant 1x10^-24M.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.wowfailblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/pancake-bunny.jpg[/img]