Thread 16771958

If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinites. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those infinities. and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and...(...)...

>>16771958 (OP)
Why the fuck do you keep spamming this schizo shit on every single board
You have been answered satisfactorily 100s of times now

>>16771958 (OP)
>infinite
is the infinity in the room with us right now?

>>16771958 (OP)
Define natural number, infinity, fraction, and "between".

congrats you just discovered fractals

>>16771958 (OP)
Read what is "countable"

>>16772068
Shut up bitch.

>>16773211
>countable
is a terrible word choice, indexable would be much better as it doesn't imply a completion is obtainable.

>>16773580
>indexable would be much better
What's the difference? How is indexing something different than counting it?

>>16771958 (OP)
Duh. Because infinity is more of a concept than some given discrete value. It just demonstrates infinity. That's why you can have something to the power of infinity, you can multiply by infinity, you can count to infinity (I think it's "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10"), you can have numbers greater than infinity (like Aleph) and so on.

>>16772289
>Define natural number
Waiting to see if 0 makes the cut or not.

>>16773796
it's not really but if you said something like label-able maybe I guess
essentially that you can pick something that is the next something
which you cant with reals, there is no "next" one

>>16773825
It doesn't. 0 is a natural number like a girl has a dick. Twenty years from now, the natural number page on wikipedia will have been reverted to what it was two years ago.

>>16773834
To me it looks like label, index, count, they're all the same thing. No?

>>16773836
>Twenty years from now, the natural number page on wikipedia will have been reverted to what it was two years ago.
Totally organic and natural sentence.

>>16773838
well counting, in daily non-technical jargon, implies counting 'til the end, and indexing and labeling is more about looking at something and recognizing in what bin/folder/category ir goes.

As an example if you ask someone to count the number of rice in a rice bag they will usually tell you to go fuck yourself since they won't count all that shit

>>16773838
The difference between idexing and counting is that counting uses the counting numbers as the indexing set.

>>16773850
Yeah, and we don't want you here if you can't parse our language. Go swim in your own shit.

>>16773851
No it doesn't. Counting is ongoing you retarded Indian
>>16773853
Lol wtf

>>16773854
>wdym i can just edit wikipedialeaks myself?!?
Who's the idiot now, moron. You sure are retarded.

>>16773850
what the fuck is going on there kek

>>16773861
>>16773853
Just mentally speak these syllables in a lilted Indian voice lol.

>>16773857
What part of my reply was unclear to you ranjeet?

>>16773857
An index is a function from an indexing set to an object set.
Counting is just a special case where the index set is a subset of {1, 2, 3, ... }.
Simple as.

>>16773867
We don't want you here.

>>16773796
>it doesn't imply a completion is obtainable.
it doesn't imply a completion is obtainable.

>>16773870
>{1, 2, 3, ... }
Lol thanks for agreeing

>>16773871
we as in you and your streetshitting troupe?

>>16773875
>it doesn't imply a completion is obtainable.
Literally just imagine this in indio voce.

>>16773881
>we as in you and your streetshitting troupe?
indio voce

>>16773876
>Lol thanks for agreeing
Agreeing with what, khan?

>>16773891
>>16773836

>>16773893
That 0 is not in {1,2,3, ... } or that all subsets of {1,2,3, ... } are finite.
Be clear in your language, Jamal. Words have meanings.

>>16773825
So now that we've setminused the retarded call center that called in from Jeetpadeesh. It is absolutely true that 20 years from now, the natural number page on wikipedia will have been reverted to what it was 2 years ago, in terms of the starting integer.

>>16773896
Go home. We don't want you here.

>>16773902
>>16773900
hello saar please redeem counting and send vagen index

>>16773904
Go home to your ugly mother.

>>16773900
Why the fuck do you think I said otherwise? I called you a bot. Change whatever wiki you want.
You'll be the first LLM to do it.
I (>>16773825) am waiting for the hivemind to converge. You are noted as "No! REEEEEEEEEEEEE! [SCEAMINGPEPEFACE.JPG]".
Is there anything else you want to add to the conversation?

>>16773916
The wikipedia page for natural numbers was graffitied less than two years ago to sometime exclude 0 instead of sometimes including it. We'll see who lives longer. Losers.

>>16773211
>>16773580
>>16773796
>>16773834
>>16773838
Counting is the act of mapping a subset of {1,2,3,...} to your target set.
Indexing is the same act where the set {1,2,3,...} is replaced with any set.
Labelling is indexing with a set of alphanumeric strings which often contain metadata themselves (e.g. {soap, toothpaste, buttcream}, USA-005AR44X, a barcode).

>>16773924
Again, no one cares. Take it to reddit of something.

>>16773928
Go back to India, the H1B program is dead.

>>16773927
That's all countable, go make India great again

>>16773933
>mapping from the Reals to the target set is "counting"
Holy fucking shit. You complete and utter moron.
You absolute egg. You are a toof's fool, Humpty Dumpty! A Toof's Fool!

>>16773938
You sound like an Indian trying to speak British.
>mapping from the Reals
When did that happen? Your brain is a fucking Indian shit river lol.

>>16773945
>When did that happen?
How stupid is this bot?
See (>>16773927), "Indexing is the same act where the set {1,2,3,...} is replaced with any set." then see (>>16773927),"That's all countable".
Ergo, "the Reals are indexable" (true) would be "the Reals are countable" (laughably false) which is something only Humpty Dumpty himself would say and believe.

>>16771958 (OP)
It's a pretty simple concept to grasp. Infinite exists.

Unrelated, but I fucking LOVE the movie that is the pic attached. Best Schizo film ever

>>16773969
>then see ( >>16773927 (YOU) ),"That's all countable".
>>16773933, duh.

>>16773969
You're so fucking stupid lol literally just go home and make India great again.

>>16773973
Say that in math or english?

>>16773975
>>16773977
>oh, shit
Kek

>>16773987
>oh, shit
Where you gonna go now?

>>16773825
The academic answer is that N starts at 1 unless otherwise adapted.
The street rat answer, forged by combat, is also that N starts at 1.

>>16773875
>obtainable.
no need to obtain something both that already is and we already have

>>16773825
already does as far as im concerned, peano might not need it(although it is nice if we do), but set theory sure as hell does

I’m sorry about what happened to your thread, OP

pee pee poo poo

Gentlemen please. I implore you to cease your pointless squabbling. Instead focus your engies on understating Mathematics in the way ordained by God. We of THE ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH welcome the righteous.

>>16774193
only the god of islam is limited, the God of the Bible is limitless

>>16774276
I’m an atheist.

BAM!

>>16774985
Brown Action Mandated!
(by your own atheism)2yydv

>>16774119
>poo poo
gaa-kaa boo-poo

infinity as a number = humans too lazy to count to a finite number.

s'gayshit for n*ggertretards.

(its not real, nor necessary)

>>16771958 (OP)
Not this shit again. OP you're one of the biggest faggots and you're parents are clearly failures since they raised you. I hope you die mate

>>16773796
Not all countable sets are computably enumerable, bijections can be "infinitely complex" in a sense. Indices are better at capturing the more general mapping concept.

>>16775366
How can you index something without putting it into a countable order?

>>16775371
"Indexable" better captures that we're talking about whether we can assign a systematic labeling scheme, not whether we can actually finish some counting process. It emphasizes the existence of the bijection rather than any temporal process of enumeration.

>>16774018
It's similar to how we might say a library's books are "catalogable" even if the catalog is infinite; we are describing the possibility of systematic organization, not claiming we could ever finish reading every book.
The mathematical community rarely changes established terminology though because it's run by arrogant insufferable retards.

>>16771958 (OP)
Numbers don't exist in nature.
>>16772068
>calling people Shizo in leu of making any sort of quality post or just saging
I'm bumping this thread just to annoy you.

The Universe is both discrete and finite.
We of THE ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH will fight to the end to ensure mathematics is the same.

>>16775989
>The mathematical community rarely changes established terminology though because it's run by arrogant insufferable retards.
eh, i think it gives mathematics a "lived in" kind of feel, if i wanted a pristine & sterile system i'd go read about some constructed language

>>16776081
The current terminology 'countable' reinforces the misconception that infinity is just a "really big number" rather than a fundamentally different mathematical concept. "Indexable" vs "non-indexable" would better convey that we're talking about structural properties of sets and their relationships to the natural numbers.

>>16776036
nah, it's continuous AND finite

>>16776229
finite and unbounded .... similar to how √(-1) appear in intermediate steps of solving a quadratic equation, but the final answers can still be real... e.g. Simple AC Circuit:

Total impedance: Z = R + iωL + 1/(iωC)

Current: I = V/Z (complex division)

Real power: P = |I|2 × R (imaginary parts don't contribute to real power)

The i (√(-1)) track phase relationships but disappear in the final power calculation