Talk:Infinity

• Talk:Infinity/archive1

Does the symbol for infinity actually make sense?

If you really think about it, the symbol for infinity suggests an infinite repeating loop, not a set of numbers that go on forever into increasing value. So, I guess maybe we should show a different main picture as a representation for infinity, and keep the circle loop thing an example of the mathmatical symbol for infinity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaji132007 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you think the symbol "makes sense" or not, that is what the symbol is. It was not assigned to ininity by wikipedia, so that's how it should remain. --Sadistic monkey (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect statement removed

I took out

"Likewise, perpetual motion machines theoretically generate infinite energy by attaining 100% efficiency or greater, and emulate every conceivable open system; the impossible problem follows of knowing that the output is actually infinite when the source or mechanism exceeds any known and understood system."

In fact, a perpetual motion machine could be detected in short order by measuring its finite energy output. The definition does not require infinite output, just output as great as the input.--Cherlin 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparing infinities

What about a comment about how to compare infinities? Is the total of all odd numbers greater or lesser than the total of all numbers? I'm not qualified to write on this, but I do know that some infinities are greater than others. F. Lee Horn

This is discussed under Cardinal number. The Infinity article does mention this, but perhaps it needs to be made clearer. --Zundark, 2002 Jan 7

There's an article about how to compare infinities at Counting Games. Should it be an external or "see also" link? --12.205.148.77

To answer your question: yes. There are more "numbers" than there are "odd numbers".--71.141.113.17 01:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The cardinality of the odd, natural numbers is the same as that of the natural numbers. Thus any meaningful definition of "the same" will say that there are as many odd numbers as whole numbers. This is a simple result of Cantor's theory, which is the only way we know to define such relationships.

Unintuitive? Yes. But that doesn't change anything.--71.178.151.40 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Physicial infinity

The article actually says this :

"It should be pointed out that this practice of refusing infinite values for measurable quantities does not come from a priori or ideological motivations, but rather from more methodological and pragmatic motivations."

Is there a source for this? Looks challengeable for the ideological part... Also, "methodological and pragmatic motivations" are somewhat "a priori" no? I further note that the example given (infinite gravitational mass) is an indication that no such body exists, but does not necessarily mean that no other infinite physical concept (such as space) can exist. --Childhood's End 15:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I might have found something about this (seems to come from Glenn Learning Technologies Project (LTP), with some relationship to NASA) [1] :

"Books have been written on infinity. I shall not deal with infinity further here except to note (because I am a physicist) that physicists take great pains to avoid it. Whenever and wherever infinity appears in a calculation, or in the development of a theory, it must be eliminated. In quantum mechanics, this elimination is done via a formidable technique called, “renormalization.”

It is clear why physicists are so “antsy” about infinity: the equations of physics are built entirely out of numbers and their defined properties; infinity is simply NOT a number; it is an abstract and sometimes contradictory-seeming concept whose exact nature and definition continues to challenge mathematicians and philosophers even to this day."

I found that this was a nice description of what I had in mind... :) It also seems to support the article about the fact that the motivations are methodological and pragmatic, although I still think that it does not rule out a priori or ideological motivations. Any thoughts? --Childhood's End 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A recently released computer game "Portal", allows the player to create a wormhole entrance and exit for the purpose of transeversing obsticles, however a common practice is to open a wormhole over another, creating an infinite chain of parralle realities which are openly visible and transversible by the player, a similar effect of infinitely extending vision involves placing two mirrors so that the reflective surfaces face one another, this could possibly add to the article some for explaining infinity in an easily accesible context Dagorlad 3 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

-- This section had many inaccuracies. There is no "currently accepted" instance where physical infinities can exist. The description of black holes and the singularity in general relativity were woeful. A singularity is simply where a theory fails. Newton's gravitation equation and Coulomb's Law both break down as "r" approaches 0, because they are macroscopic theories. (The Coulomb singularity is corrected by quantum mechanics.) The same for general relativity, which is also a theory that explains macroscopic physical phenomena.

Also, there was a statement that said "one place where infinities arise is in the quantization of thermodynamic temperatures". This is also incorrect. Classical thermodynamics failed to correctly calculate the total internal energy of a blackbody, giving infinities as answers instead. Quantum mechanics resolves this issue via the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and gives a finite answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.69.148 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 July 2008

I'm not certain, but I doubt that's what the "temperature" remark was getting at. I suspect it was talking about a system just on the borderline between positive and negative temperature, or between population inversion and whatever you call not-population-inversion. --Trovatore (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cosmology sub-section

The cosmology sub-section is interesting and wide-ranging despite that it is short, but perhaps someone could provide thoughts on a problem that I have with it:

"Note that the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By walking/sailing/driving straight long enough, you'll return to the exact spot you started from."

This is a theory often encountered in cosmology debates about the Universe size/boundaries, but I still fail to grasp why this point has much merit. The fact that you can come back to your starting point on Earth and go round and round indefinitely is due to the fact that the Earth has physical boundaries and that you would give respect to them by following its defined surface. But as for the Universe, if it has no boundaries at all, you could not come back to your starting point by flying straight ahead. And even if the U would have a topology such as the Earth, you could still escape its boundaries by not respecting them while flying, unless we pretend there's a wall or something (what opens the door for at least a neighboring universe, and thus for an Infinite Universe if we call "Universe" the sum of all the universes...). Thus, it seems dubious to affirm that "the question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries". Any thoughts? --Childhood's End 15:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The Earth has a boundary -- its surface. The surface of the Earth does not have a boundary; there's no edge you can sail off of. The cosmological analogy is between the universe and the surface of the Earth. Melchoir 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

But then, this analogy seems to compare apples with oranges... Should not the analogy be made between the Earth and the Universe rather than with the Earth's surface and the Universe? I mean, of course, if the Universe, like the Earth, has a boundary - its surface - then its surface can be without boundaries. But what if the Universe does not have a boundary/surface like the Earth has? Again, unless I miss something, this analogy shows no logical separation of being infinite and the question of having no boundaries.

Further, for the analogy to hold even if we accept the dubious comparison, we must accept to comply with the Earth's gravity or topology and follow the surface so that it can be endless. Technically, there's an edge you can sail off a sphere's surface at every point of it. Unless there's some wall, the same could be said of any such boundary for the Universe and thus, again, we find that this shows no logical separation between the two ideas. Or perhaps I missed something? --Childhood's End 12:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What you're missing is that this is an analogy to enable your intuition to deal with something with which it has no direct experience. To get closer to the (possible) real situation, you need to add one to each dimension. So instead of being the two-dimensional surface of a three-dimensional ball (like the surface of the Earth), the proposal is that our universe might be topologically equivalent to the three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional ball. (More precisely, that could be the topology of a spacelike three-dimensional slice of four-dimensional spacetime.) --Trovatore 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that the article is describing an inherently four-spatial-dimensional behavior that we, as creatures of three spatial dimensions, are just not built to understand. You shouldn't be blamed for this, but please don't let this hold the article up, because it is also quite true. It's an extremely common idea in modern cosmology, ever since Einstein's General Theory of Relativity introduced the idea (now experimentally verified) that 3D space (and 1D time) can be curved. Mathematically it makes sense, just like it makes sense to describe the 2D surface of a sphere as an unbounded, finite area. However, our intuition fails us in such cases, and we resort to analogous situations in lower dimensions. The mathematical description, however, is well defined in all dimensions, and this is one of the things that you just learn to live with when dealing with modern physics.--71.178.151.40 04:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's interesting, although learning to live with this when dealing with modern physics appears to me somewhat a biaised learning when I take renormalization into consideration. Or perhaps I dont make sense... --142.195.189.128 15:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The rejection of the simple concept that infinity is the 5th dimension is it seems based on a reactionary rejection of new ideas. Instead 'experts' engage in contorted counter-explanations speculating about a closed-universe or a multitude of exotic new dimensions. Also, I concur with the critical comments in the paragraphs above.

Again since the four known dimensions of height, width, deep and time can never completely define infinity, it seems obvious that infinity is the 5th dimension. However the reality that time & space never began and will never end is apparently difficult for many to accept. Yet we know infinity exist because no matter how many light~years you travel, you can always go one more kilometer - there's no limiting boundry, no wall. Look at it this way, science is about definitions, so something like infinity, a dimension that can not be quantified, is anomalous and rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.170.234 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

APOLOGY/WITHDRAWL: I wrote the discussion(two paragraphs; just above) about cosmological infinity unknowingly in violation of Wikipedia's rules, because they are (to advance) my orginal thoughts/ideas...Why 'experts' are so ready to accept/advocate a limited universe (e.g. a closed~loop) is frustrating to me. But I can't advocate that here because to begin with I can't even work through your elaborate registration instructions & procedures...I'm just an artist, not physicist or mathmetician. Next time I get some money I'll try an make a donation. Sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.170.234 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Extended real number line

The last few edits made to the "Infinity operated with a real number a" subsection contain equations with limits. This is probably incorrect, since that subsection is talking about the properties of the extended real number line, which includes the actual values +∞ and −∞. Thus ^a/₀ = ∞ (for all a ≠ 0), for example. — Loadmaster 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A secondary point -- the phrases "infinity operated with itself" and "infinity operated with a real number a" are bad grammar. Presumably they were added by a non-native speaker? No offense meant to whoever wrote those phrases, but they absolutely can't remain. I won't fix them at the moment, first of all because I'm not sure exactly what to change them to, and perhaps more important, because I think the whole section should probably just be removed (the material should appear at extended real number line but is too detailed for this article). Anyone want to beat me to fixing it? --Trovatore 09:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I support removing the section. --Zundark 09:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you support that? that $a/0=\infty$ for all a &ne 0 using the properties of the extended real line, where there's two infinities, and not a single infinity like in the Riemann sphere? A recent previous edit [2] made more sense in this section because it used the limits to explain how the operations worked. This may be a moot point, see below. Root⁴(one) 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Which section? The extended real line needs to stay, or at least explicit some reference needs to be placed there, somehow. Maybe we should allow the extended real line explain these operations... yes, that would make sense. Hmmm, in fact our articles seem to contradict each other. To quote extended real number line#Arithmetic operations:

Note that 1 / 0 is not defined as either +∞ or −∞, because although it is true that whenever f(x) → 0 for a continuous function f(x), we must have that 1/f(x) is eventually in every neighborhood of the set {−∞, +∞}, it is not true that 1/f(x) must converge to one of these points. An example is f(x) = 1/(sin(1/x)).

Ok, this seems to be a fairly serious contradiction. My guess is that article is probably more correct than this one. Root⁴(one) 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. The article said nothing about 1 / 0. FilipeS 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how you can say it said "nothing" about 1/0 ! It discussed 1/0 and an uncountable number of other expressions, but it never directly referred to 1/0. IIRC, we were talking about the expressions x/0 where x is real and $x\neq 0$ This set of expressions includes 1/0, but also all expressions are related to 1/0 by multiplication by some constant $c\neq 0$.

No matter, I think the consensus here is that the algebraic manipulation of some symbolic concept of infinity should be only defined or handled on the pages which describe the addition of infinity or a multitude of infinities to some number system in question and not here. Root⁴(one) 14:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh..... reading [3], this is where Loadmaster got his facts. What's right? Is Affinely Extended different from Extended? Root⁴(one) 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Affinely extended is the type discussed in the article (at least predominantly): This is the real line with a pair of points "at infinity". An alternative is the projectively extended real line (see [4]) which has a single point at infinity attached. Silly rabbit 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(re-tab) After reading the Mathworld Affinely Extended Real Numbers link again, I see that it is $\left|{\tfrac {x}{0}}\right|=\infty$ that is defined, not ${\tfrac {x}{0}}$. In any case, it seems the limits in that section are misplaced. Root⁴(one) 18:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Too much speculation about the symbol's origin

If there is no documented evidence regarding the symbol's origin, then any explanation regarding it should be designated a folk explanation. For all that we know, he created it as a secret message to the freemasons and their alien masters. As with songs, I think that people tend to read too much into these simple characters. I'm a member of the "0 was already taken" party if you want to know the truth. Griff@66.229.255.90 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations for "Mathematical infinity" section

The "Mathematical infinity" section has been tagged {{Unreferencedsection}} since June. It looks like the section discusses basic mathematics known for over a hundred years (except for the bit about nonstandard analysis), so what citations are necessary? — Loadmaster 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I had wondered this very same thing myself. Perhaps a reference to a simple textbook on some of the mathematics involved would suffice? Surely these "required" references exist on other mathematics articles which deal with similar equations? — Metaprimer 05:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Infinity in the Arts

I think we should start a (small) section "Infinity in the Arts", starting with a link to M.C.Escher. Obviously, we don't want this to grow without bound (pun intended), it should be just to show enough representative examples of artists who were known for their portrayals or use of infinity in their artwork. — Loadmaster 16:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I started the "In the arts" section. Hopefully others will add some heft to it, especially links to other artists like Escher. — Loadmaster 17:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope no-one will be offended that I removed the 'popular culture' section. The concept of infinity as used in popular culture probably deserves its own article, and can certainly be better exemplified than with a trading card and an album cover. --carelesshx _talk 04:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not defined or infinity

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{9}}+{\frac {1}{9^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{9^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{9^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{9^{n}}}}}=8$

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{8}}+{\frac {1}{8^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{8^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{8^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{8^{n}}}}}=7$

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{7}}+{\frac {1}{7^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{7^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{7^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{7^{n}}}}}=6$

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{6}}+{\frac {1}{6^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{6^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{6^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{6^{n}}}}}=5$

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{5^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{5^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{5^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{5^{n}}}}}=4$

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{4}}+{\frac {1}{4^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{4^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{4^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{4^{n}}}}}=3$

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{3}}+{\frac {1}{3^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{3^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{3^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{3^{n}}}}}=2$

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{2^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{2^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{2^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{2^{n}}}}}=1$

${\frac {1}{{\frac {1}{1}}+{\frac {1}{1^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{1^{3}}}+{\frac {1}{1^{4}}}\ldots }}={\frac {1}{\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{1^{n}}}}}=0$

The inverse of zero is ${\infty }$ User:Twentythreethousand 11:55, 18 September 2007

Omni?

I've called the ∞ lemniscate, the "omni" symbol, for over a decade and people usually seem to understand it through relation to the infinite nature of most words prefixed with "omni-" and to the dissimilarity of that grouping of sounds from any other English words. It just seems sensible to write ∞-scient, ∞-present, or ∞-potent. Anyhow, as it stands this is way too OR to put in an article, so I just wanted to know if others think this is a reasonable neologism or have seen it crop up anywhere before. Thecurran 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're maybe being influenced by Omni, a pretty good sci-fi mag from the eighties or so, that IIRC used to use the symbol prominently. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also noted is ∞-verse representing the concept of an ever expanding place of being (verse) realised by multiplying every event that has ever happened by every possible outcome times the equation of a possible future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clownie conscious (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

1/0=Infinity

Infinity can never be defined, therefore shouldn't it be equal to 1/0. 1/0 is greater than any imaginable number, as well as infinity. 1/0 being greater than any other number can be shown if you start taking any real number and plugging it in for the zero. When this happen the answer to the algebraic equation gets greater as the denominator gets lower. This brings me to conclude that 0 when plugged into 1/x would be the largest number, infinity. Even in the graph 1/x, it can been seen that when x is equal to zero, it crosses the y-axis at a point that is undefined, though logically infinity. Therefore, through this equation is possible to postulate that infinity and negative infinity are one and the same. The reason for this is since the equation is a function, meaning it crosses the y-axis at one point, it cannot have two y-axis crossings, unless infinity and negative infinity are one and the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARedens (talk • contribs) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Aredens, as far as I'm aware there is no such thing as "the largest number" in standard mathematical analysis. 1/0 is not equal to infinity. But the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is. In other words, infinity means "to grow without bound." Hoomank (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hoomank, a new sense to 1/0 = infinity was introduced by Martin Cooke in: "To Continue with Continuity" Metaphysica (2005) 6, pp. 91-109, http://www.metaphysica.de/texte/mp2005_2-Cooke.pdf. The cardinal number of points in a continuum is postulated to be equal to the length of a line of points divided by the length of a point = 1/0. Such a cardinal number (denoted by #) has the property that it is not a set-theoretical cardinal number (an aleph). So if the natural numbers form a potential infinity (as some supertasks might one day show) there could still be such an actual infinity as #. Or if Peirce was right, if the cardinality of the continuum was greater than any aleph, then there might be # points in a line (Peirce had the points being so many that they blurred into each other, so that they were and yet also were not there, as he thought the set-theoretic paradoxes indicated). Incidentally, although it is a reciprocal of the smallest number, # might not be the biggest number (even in this non-standard setting), since 2 to the power of # might be bigger (according to Cooke 2005, p. 103). Username12321 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"commonly represented as ∞"

On the recent exchange between FelipeS and Jwy: FelipeS is certainly correct that infinite ordinals and cardinals are not represented by the ∞ symbol. However, infinite ordinals and cardinals -- though certainly relevant enough to mention in this article -- are also not usually called "infinity". In fact when people speak of "infinity" in connection with ordinals, they usually mean something like iterating through all the ordinals, or something that's true for all ordinals -- compare infinity-Borel set. If I wanted to stretch a point I could find a philosophical undercurrent here, but the point might break if I stretched it that far, and I don't suppose any of us want broken points lying around where someone might step on them. --Trovatore (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends on which people are speaking. People with some mathematical culture (and I don't just mean mathematicians, mind you) tend to treat the infinity of calculus (∞) as a mere uninteresting placeholder, barely worth a mention, and the infinite cardinals (aleph-0, c, etc.) as the real infinities. FilipeS (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How interesting they are is not the point. They aren't called "infinity". They'll be called, for example, "infinite quantities", but not "infinity" unmodified. How would people know which ordinal or cardinal you meant, if you just said "infinity"? --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And how do people know whether you mean positive infinity, negative infinity, or unsigned infinity, when you say "infinity"? When most people think of "infinity", they think of an infinite set (such as in the popular example of Hilbert's infinite hotel), not of limits. FilipeS (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Infinite sets are called infinite sets, not infinity. When the term "infinity" is used in set theory (which is fairly rarely), it doesn't mean any particular ordinal or cardinal, nor does it mean the notion from calculus -- it most likely means Cantor's absolute infinite. And this is frequently represented by the ∞ symbol.

That's in mathematics done in English, of course; for all I know it might be different in Portuguese. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being unreasonably literal. People do not care about what is conventionally called "infinity" and what is not. They care about the concept of infinity. Of which there are several. Aleph-0 may not often be called "infinity", but it and its successors are certainly called infinite cardinals, sometimes even "infinite numbers".

The page should concern itself with the various notions of infinity in several disciplines, as it currently does. The infinite elements of R are but two ways to formalize infiniteness. FilipeS (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Asaṃkhyeya

On the assumption that the two terms are synonymous and/or cognate, I linked "asaṃkhyāta" to Asaṃkhyeya. If someone knows better, by all means change it back. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Infinity as a number

The opening section refers to infinity as a number but then goes on to say it is not like other numbers on the real line. I think this section is misleading. Except in some non-standard mathematical systems, infinity is not a number. The infinity symbol usually means "to grow without bound" as in lim x->0 1/x.

I would like the section that refers to infinity as a number removed.

Hoomank (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Strictly speaking it doesn't say infinity is a number, just that it's sometimes treated as one, which is certainly true. I would note that there is no uniform meaning of either "infinity" or "number", so the phrases infinity is a number and infinity is not a number are both fairly meaningless.

Just the same, I'm not convinced that the current wording, which says

In mathematics, "infinity" is often used in contexts where it is treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is a different type of "number" from the real numbers

is really all that useful or well-phrased; I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a complete rewrite of the second paragraph of the lede. I don't think that just deleting the sentence is a good idea, as it would leave a one-sentence paragraph. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not volunteering to formulate a better intro, but I think the lede ought to say that (also) in mathematics the terms "infinite" and "infinity" are used for a number of different concepts and have different uses and meanings in different contexts.  --Lambiam 07:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

A Bi-Transcendental number represents infinity very well.

Please consider the number PI. It goes into the decimal to an infinite degree. It is called a Transcendental Number

The title Bi-Transcendental Number or BiTranscendental Number doesn't exist in wikipedia because some uppitty PHD will remove it because they didn't come up with it. So right now, I won't even attempt to create it. Now consider PI that expands into both directions.

and on <--...951413.14159...--> and on

Infinity? I am discussing the math here. How to realize, prove, disprove, and or show the math behind a new type of number.

Gravitroid (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Infinity in cosmosology

The edge of the visible universe.

The speed of Light is 186,000 miles per second 1 light year is the distance light travels in one year, 5,878,630,000,000 ( trillion ) miles and the nearest star Proxima Centauri, is about 4.22 light-years away. and the distance of the visible universe at 13.7 billion light years

Since light travels at a finite speed, it can only have traveled a certain distance in the 13.7 billion years the universe has been around. The light which can reach us defines a giant sphere (radius = 13.7 billion parsecs) around the earth. If something is further away than that, its light won't have reached us yet.

Since light-speed is the speed limit for everything in the universe, nothing from beyond this region will have reached us yet, so no one knows what's beyond it.

boyer_the_destroyer@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boyer the destroyer (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Copyrighted text

The line "has been found in Tibetan rock carvings, and the ouroboros, or infinity snake, is often depicted in this shape." is MY copyrighted text. It is taken without permission from http://symboldictionary.net/?p=1026 or its previous iteration at About.com. The historical link for the material is here: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsinfinity.htm and as you can see, it predates its appearance here.Infinitysnake (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

About.com? This has clearly been copied from here. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The only thing obvious is that the text was added in 2006, over three years after this appeared on archive.org. This was properly removed. Given the edit war over it, I have tagged the page appropriately. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, you are welcome to browse through the panoply of other revisions of the statement in question at the wayback link (quoted above): http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsinfinity.htm . A nearly exact match can be found just prior to the act of plagiarism quoted above. If you have no idea what I am talking about, then you should enlist someone who does. Above all *do not* dismiss this as "trolling" as you have already done twice. It will get you blocked pretty quickly. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Destroying the article over a one line alleged vio is clearly way out of line, don't do it again. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Squeakbox, you are wrong, and the evidence couldn't be more clear. I have been frequently copied on Wikipedia, and I have always been able to demonstrate the prior existence of my material. About for all its problems condones copying about as much as Wikipedia does. I am an established, published author, and I have never copied or even paraphrased material from elsewhere, especially not from Wikipedia. Further (as evidenced by my long-term user name) I COINED the term used in both articles.

If you don't like seeing the copyright notice, please stop trying to revert the removal of the copyrighted text. The copyvio notice was a correct course of action after several attempts at reasonable removal failed.Infinitysnake (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Err, no, butchering this important article is not the way to go, if you believe there is a copyvio affecting your work you should get in touch with the wikipedia office. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Your opinion is not Wiki policy, protocol was followed whether you like it or not:

"If some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. If the copyright holder's permission is later obtained, the text may be restored." Infinitysnake (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if you think there is a copyvio, go to the office, see the policy on COI. TBH Silly Rabbit was just trolling, we do not trash a needed article without good cause and you have not provided that but are free to so with the office. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, and the evidence of this is plain. Given the facts are solid and Wikipedia's rules demand prompt removal of copyrighted material, the correct conclusion here is that you are the one doing the trolling.Infinitysnake (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are solid facts go to the office, stop complaining here, your obvious interest in this matter personally and your insulting me combine to make you look bad, I suggest you read WP:COI and stop quoting policies in order to justify trashing a perfectly good article which needs to be covered. Thanks, SqueakBox

People, people, don't make me come down there.

Squeaky, there is no "office". Yes, in extreme cases, there are oversight actions available to deal with copyright, but this is not the normal flow. WP editors are responsible for insuring that articles do not infringe.

Infsnake, "copyright" on a single short sentence? You can't be serious.

Squeaky, removing this trifle is "butchering" the article? You can't be serious. I see no great value in keeping it at all, but if you do, it should be a trivial matter to paraphrase, and then there is no copyright issue.

The whole "dispute", in total, is not worth the effort I've just expended here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, butchering the article is what Silly Rabbit did by stickking a copyvio tag on it, removing a sentence is not butchering the article and indeed makes no difference. I wills ay that i investigated the alleged copyvio and found it spurious but as the article is still okay with it nott here its not worth edit warring over. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... you were wrong in your assessment about the copyvio status in the beginning, and continued to editwar over it. Moreover, in your flailing you have now four times accused an established editor in good standing of "trolling". I think that is blockworthy in itself, unless you promise on your talk page never to do so again. 72.95.229.48 (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I note that User:InfinitySnake has had several issues with Wikipedia text or media infringing on his or her copyrights in the past. It would therefore be best to err on the side of caution, and take these allegations more seriously than you appear to do. Otherwise, InfinitySnake may actually contact "the office", and you would no doubt find your self on the wrong side of an OTRS ticket. 72.95.229.48 (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

People aren't on the sides of an OTRS ticket, all io want is to an article here not a spurious copyvio tag and if IS has a number of issues he certainly should take them to OTRS. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Your initial edits had nothing to do with the presence or lack of a copyvio tag. They were merely a response to having the material re-removed (over your own judgement) that they did indeed constitute a copyright violation. The tag was properly added because an edit war had ensued which unequivocally was re-inserting copyrighted material (whatever you think of its merit). The personal attack "troll" was repeated many time in this interchange, and you still have not rescinded it. If Silly rabbit is a troll, then you should have him or her blocked. If not, then you should redact your comment and publically apologize for your totally inappropriate behavior. 72.95.229.48 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly rabbit has retired and I do not try to get editors blocked except for obvious user name violations, rascism etc. The article on infinity is needed and removing the whole article is clearly inappropriate based on the allegations about one sentence - end of story. That 2 users looked at and found the allegations spurious of itself says something. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

But one of the users in question (Quaeler) actually contacted User:Infinitysnake to get clarification on where the copyvio came from. After some prodding, Infinitysnake then provided some fairly convicing evidence, and that should have been the end of it. But then another user (User:SqueakBox) totally ignored all of that, and accused the only editor who had actually bothered to check out the dates of the various edits of trolling, and then tried to say that he had actually engaged in an exhaustive search himself. This is dubious and tiresome. The record is here for all to see. Why do you persist in trying to defend the assertion: "SILLY RABBIT IS A TROLL!!!!" I think you should just rescind it, and be done with it. You were wrong. Apologize and move on. 72.95.229.48 (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I am certainly of the opinion that the editor who was wrong was Silly Rabbit. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no evidence of trolling. The copy right violation tag blanks an article for a good reason. Maybe you feel it was in appropriate, but name calling is a bit out of place. We should always try to assume good faith. I have to agree with the editor above who suggests you owe Silly Rabbit an apology. Thenub314 (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Saw the latest addition from the IP and removal by Squeaky as a "legal threat". This is getting beyond ridiculous. The disputed content is — to put it extremely politely — not helpful to the article, so arguing over its copyright status is...I just don't have words for what that is.

InfinitySnake, as far as it concerns me, I do not intend to violate your "copyright" here (copyright on a dozen words? well, let it go) and indeed am happy to help keep this purportedly copyrighted material out of the article. In fact, if you were to license it under the GFDL and re-add it, I would remove it in that case too. --Trovatore (talk) 10:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Trovatore, ordinarily, I wouldn't make an issue of it- but in the past I have had issues with snippets, even to the point where I've been accused of copying from the wiki. When it's cumulative, it gets copied all over the web, ebay, you name it- especially in the case of a couple very popular wiki articles that were spread everywhere before editors caught the copying. If there was a citation, I'd be okay with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitysnake (talk • contribs) 03:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Physical infinity

Added a brief paragraph about CBM multipole measurement and their consequences for the physical finity or infinity of our universe. Also, added a link to an online encyclopedia of infinity that is of relevance for this page. This link was removed before - please give reasons for removing links. Jcl365 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics without (actual) infinity

The section title "Mathematics without infinity" is inaccurate. Kronecker is famous for saying that God created the integers, and he could not have been so silly as to believe the set of integers to be finite. I changed it to "Mathematics without actual infinity", and "rejected the notion of actual infinity". This change was reverted, with the request to explain. This is my explanation. There is a difference between "rejecting infinity" (which would seem to imply belief that the integers stop somewhere), and "rejecting actual infinity". Almost all mathematicians accept that the integers are infinite (go on forever); in other words, they believe in "potential infinity". Some of these mathematicians prefer proofs to be meaningful in terms of computations that could in principle be carried out by people, so they avoid proofs that would seem to assume, for example, that a person could carry out an infinite number of computations in a finite length of time. In other words, they reject "actual infinity" or "completed infinity". Of course this is a simplification and there's a lot more to it. The purpose of the change in this article is to avoid misleading readers. Without the distinction of potential versus actual infinity, the idea of "rejecting infinity" might just seem silly, but it has been part of philosophy since Aristotle and has practical importance in applied mathematics, given that the fastest computers are still only able to perform a finite number of computations in a finite period of time. Please see actual infinity for details; I hope you'll agree that the term "actual infinity" here is more accurate and consistent with standard mathematical usage. OK? 66.245.43.17 (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)