Are there really infinitely many finite numbers

[Anonymous No.15565729]

Doesn't that mean that at least one of them have to be infinite?

[Anonymous No.15565759]

Short answer 'No'.

[Anonymous No.15565984]

>>15565729
0 is a natural number

[Anonymous No.15565995]

>>15565729
Assume that there's a biggest natural number [math]n_\text{max}[/math]. Then, the number [math]n_\text{max} + 1[/math] would not be a natural number because it's would be larger. QED.

[Anonymous No.15566036]

Why is infinity such a brainlet and midwit filter?

[Anonymous No.15566096]

>>15566036
the common link between most brainlet filters is that stupid people really struggle hard with abstraction, and infinity is purely an abstract concept

[Anonymous No.15566725]

>>15565729
theres no upper limit, i.e. you can always make a new natural number

>>15565984
0 is not a number

[Anonymous No.15566727]

>>15566725
edit: i should mention that making a larger natural number will always require more information.

if you do not have it then you cant make a larger natural, i.e. real computers have a limit on the largest natural you can manipulate

[Anonymous No.15566754]

>>15565995
>Assume that there's a biggest natural number nmax
what if i don't assume this

[Anonymous No.15566756]

>>15566096
it's just walking forever in one direction. it's not hard to understand. most students in middle school can grasp this

[Anonymous No.15566785]

>>15566756
wrong, that's going towards infinity, not infinity itself

[1234chan No.15566789]

>>15566725
Idk if it's a number, but 0 is in N
if you don't take 0, you must write N*

[Anonymous No.15566790]

>>15566756
Wrong, that's going towards infinity, not infinity itself.

[Anonymous No.15566805]

>>15565729
The only natural numbers are 0 and 1. Anything else is but the cardinality of a subset of the set.

[1234chan No.15566831]

>>15566754
Bruh he is reasoning by the absurd

[1234chan No.15566832]

>>15566805
According to Von Neumann definition, we start with nothing, and putting it in set, we can create all the positive integer

Here's a youtube short that explain it but it's in french :/
https://youtube.com/shorts/_cm-vwV7fy0?feature=share

[1234chan No.15566836]

>>15565984
I also tought that, but I saw that on Wikipedia (see picture)

[Anonymous No.15566874]

>>15566096
>infinity is purely an abstract concept
So it's philosophy ?

[Anonymous No.15566940]

>>15565729
Natural numbers don't exist, they just are.

[Anonymous No.15567090]

>>15566789
0 is not in N retard. N is the counting numbers. At least Google it to make sure, we live in the information age

[Anonymous No.15567146]

>>15565729
>Are there really infinitely many finite numbers
Obviously yes. If you think otherwise, then what's the last number?
>Doesn't that mean that at least one of them have to be infinite?
No, why would it mean that? At no point do you add 1 more to a finite number and come out with infinity.

[1234chan No.15567184]

>>15567090
I made it, see what Wikipedia say bro
(If you look good, Ive posted this picture at one of my posts)

ps: We live in the information age. At least use Google before to use 4chan

[Anonymous No.15567430]

>>15567090
Hahaha that retard in set theory 0 is a natural. Give up that stupid think.

[Anonymous No.15567447]

In Several bibliography you find that set N is a set where all elements are finite and that is not a definition, that can be proved.

[Anonymous No.15567653]

>>15565729
I hate this braindead trend of approaching infinity as an infinte sum of numbers. Infinity is a concept, it's a recursive process with no end. It's not 1+1+1+1+1. Remove that picture off your mind.
No one seems to struggle with the concept of "forever", and it's because they just take it as such and don't attempt to add up days on an imaginary calendar.

[Anonymous No.15567974]

>>15567090
zero is wherever I say zero is, nigga, this is math, we made it up, bitch
e = 2
pi = 6
and the integers are my asshole

[1234chan No.15568243]

>>15567974
zero=0

[Anonymous No.15568247]

>>15568243
0=-1

[Anonymous No.15568253]

>>15566874
Abstraction belongs to math. We don't allow philosoplebs here, they're intellectually unqualified.

[Anonymous No.15568344]

>>15566789
[math]\mathbb{N}[/math] can mean either [math]\{0,1,2,...,n,...\}[/math] or [math]\{1,2,3,...,n,...\}[/math], either is fine.

If you want to be super-autistic about it you can write [math]\mathbb{N}-\{0\}[/math] or [math]\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}[/math].

[1234chan No.15568363]

>>15568344
Ok, thank you

[Anonymous No.15568380]

cantor's axiom of infinity and sets of numbers can easily prove that infinity must be a real number self contained within the set of natural numbers.

infinity is a stupid concept when it comes to human mathematics.
the concept of infinity began as a religious and philosophical term to describe qualities of God.

some midwit at some point then decided that there must be a god of all numbers and that's how we got to the retarded position we're in now.

[Anonymous No.15568787]

>>15568380
>infinity must be a real number
lolno

[Anonymous No.15568791]

>>15568380
>cantor's axiom of infinity and sets of numbers can easily prove that infinity must be a real number self contained within the set of natural numbers.
Construct infinity as a Dedekind cut starting from the axiom of infinity. I'm waiting.

[Anonymous No.15568792]

>>15565984
You are such a dumb cunt. Dealing detritus like you is frankly Sisyphean, because you produce stupidity that needs to be deboonked with 100 times the effort.
>he is saying 0 is not in N!
Thats the point. No. I am not. I am not saying 0 is in N either. I am saying deboonking morons about this topic is time-consuming.

[Anonymous No.15568811]

>>15568792
> t. natural virgin

[Anonymous No.15568812]

>>15568791
axiom of infinity defines the set of all numbers to have the size of "infinity".
[math]\mathbb{N} = [1,2,3,...]\\ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{9}{10^n}=[0.9,0.99,0.999,...] = \mathbb{K} [/math]
there exists bijection between set N and set K.
[math]\sum_{\mathbb{n=N[1]}}^{x=\mathbb{N}[x]} = [1,2,3,...,x] = \mathbb{G} [/math]
defines thats the size of set G is the limit of x. if x=5, the size is 5. if x=500, the size is 500.
x which defines the size is also an element self-contained within the set.

this is further demonstrated through computing and computer engineering which treat the highest value attainable via a Floating Point register as "infinity", even though a clearly finite value immediately preceded it.
Going along with inability to perform arithmetic on infinity, a Floating Point register which had reached infinity becomes essentially softlocked without outright replacing it's variable value, unable to perform any useful math with the variable. val+1 might equal infinity, but that same val-1, after having reached infinity, does not return to a working value and remains locked at infinity.

The reason computer scientists and engineers designed it this way is because this was the most logical interpretation of the actual agreed upon rules; infinity is simply the largest real number accessible, and so infinity is also shown to be a self-contained element at the end of any working set of N.

inb4
>end

if there's no end, there's also no end bracket, and therefore no concrete set.
it would be
[math]\mathbb{N} = [1,2,3,... [/math]
rather than
[math]\mathbb{N} = [1,2,3,...] [/math]

and so it'd be better to say the size of set N is undefined.

[Anonymous No.15568846]

>>15568812
>the size of set G is the limit of x
Limits are not cardinals. Try again.

[Anonymous No.15569022]

>>15568247
0 = -1
0/2 = -1/2
0/3 = -1/3
...
0/∞ = -1/∞
0 = 0

0/∞ = π/∞
...
0/2 = π/2
0 = π

Or

0 = N

[Anonymous No.15570565]

>>15568846
is 1 a cardinal