# Infinitely small number added infinitely?

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by John J. Bannan, Jul 14, 2008.

1. ### NasorValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,230
Because, as I said, saying that the number both has infinitely many zeros after the decimal AND that it also eventually terminates in a 1 is a self-contradictory set of properties. It's like saying that a staircase ascends forever without ever ending, and that its last step at the top is painted red. If the staircase has a last step, then it doesn’t ascend forever without ending. If your number has an infinite series of zeros after the decimal, then it doesn’t end in 1 because it doesn’t end in anything. Because it doesn’t end, period.
The fact that you can sum an infinite series and get a finite number does not change the fact that's it self-contradictory to claim that a decimal number has never-ending zeros that end in a 1.

Last edited: Jul 15, 2008

3. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Let's make one thing clear here. I don't think I have the solution to the existence of the universe. I only think I have formulated the best known possibility, until I am convinced otherwise. That's quite an easy feat to accomplish in light of the lack of any explanation coming from science. Scientists shrugging their shoulders isn't of much use to the inquisitive minded, either. I also tend to believe that other dimensions exist outside of time, which could explain the Big Bang. But, the existence of those other dimensions would also have to be explained - I haven't heard any explanation for that either.

Messages:
2,346

7. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Infinity - Infinity is an example of infinities canceling each other out. The answer however is apparently undefined.

8. ### CptBorkValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,418
If something coming from nothing is the best known possibility, what makes this assumption better than the possibility that time or some other parametrization goes infinitely far into the past, or the possibility that cause and effect only applies after the Big Bang?

9. ### Steve100O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔OValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,346
That is not an example of them canceling out at all. The very fact that it is undefined shows that.
For them to cancel out infinity - infinity would have to equal 0.
It however does not, as infinity - infinity is an illogical task, hence undefined.

10. ### MylesRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
5,553
Suggestion:

John J. Bannan has more than a fair run for his money. Despite his having been told he is wrong by a number of us, and having been given numerous clear responses, he persists in repeating the same nonsense time and again.

My conclusion is that he is either obtuse or stubborn, more anxious to make a point than to accept that he is wrong. I suggest, therefore, that he be ignored because continuing to reply to his posts is clearly a waste of time. He will only be satisfied when the number of posts reaches infinity.

Sorry, John. but you have all the attributes of a troll.

Messages:
8,967
Seconded.

12. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Well, if cause and effect doesn't apply before the Big Bang, then surely something must have existed to accomodate the Big Bang. Why is that something there? No answer to that one, nor even an identification of what that something is (although perhaps a Brane). But even the existence of a Brane does not explain why it is there at all. Sure, asking why connotates a cause and effect relationship. But, I don't know the word to ask a similar question of a higher dimension. But, the question still exists, and has not been answered. As far as time going infinitely into the past, I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying the Big Bang recycles itself? Are you saying there are parallel universes? These propositions would still suffer from the primary cause paradox. If the the Big Bang recycles itself, then why would it do that? And how did it get there in the first place? These other possibilities leave gapping questions unanswered. Whereas, nothingness leaves only one question - how can something come from nothing? But, nothingness, i.e. empty space, does have an interconnection with matter suggesting matter came from empty space. Matter warps space through gravity. There is also a whole heck of a lot of empty space surrounding matter, which intuitively suggests empty space has something to do with the creation of matter. That's why nothingness from somethingess is a better possible explanation.

13. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Isn't it plain on its face that subtracting infinity from infinity would cancel them out?

14. ### John J. BannanRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,471
Sorry, Myles - but as D.H. pointed out, my theory involves hyperreal numbers. "An important property of *R is that it has infinitely large as well as infinitesimal numbers, where an infinitely large number is a number that is larger than all numbers representable in the form." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number. Now, you have yet to provide me one argument that applies to hyperreal numbers. Notice that hyperreal numbers include infinitesimal numbers. Perhaps the both of us should study up on the subject of hyperreal numbers. Thank you, D.H.

15. ### Steve100O͓͍̯̬̯̙͈̟̥̳̩͒̆̿ͬ̑̀̓̿͋ͬ ̙̳ͅ ̫̪̳͔OValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,346
No, infinity does not work like other numbers, as it is not a number, merely a concept.

If I were to say; infinityA - infinityB= 0
then; infinityA - 1 = infinityC
we get; infinityC - infinityB = -1
or any other number we wish via similar means.

You can see that trying to treat infinity as a normal number does not work.

16. ### Why?Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,896
What do you know about hyperreal numbers?

17. ### CptBorkValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,418
Wrong. If cause and effect doesn't apply "prior" to the Big Bang, then nothing "must have existed to accomodate" it, because that phrase in itself depends on causality. Again, your notions of common sense need not be limitations on what is logically possible.

I'm saying it's possible that no matter how far back you look in time, there could be infinitely many causes going into the past. Existence might not have a beginning, even if causality has always been applicable.

Why wouldn't it do that?

Good question. Noone has an answer to that, nor is there any reason to believe that this is how it must have happened.

By your own definition, empty space isn't "nothingness", it has intrinsic properties. So your explanation still falls apart at the seams just like any other attempt. These are questions that go beyond the scope of present human comprehension, and that's where they might always lie. Physics doesn't bother with these questions, we focus on things that we can comprehend and give definite answers to.

18. ### Why?Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,896
Unfortunately, Mr. Bannan has been banned for a day for pissing off BenTheMan. However, I will take up his torch and respond to you, if I may.
First, how does one ask about the existence of a realm without time?
Second, are you denying the Big Bang?
Third, why would a Big Bang recycle? I thought science said the universe is expanding forever at an accelerated rate?
Fourth, I thought physics was all about trying to explain the existence of the universe? Sure, the answer to existence might be beyond human comprehension, but then again, maybe it's not. Certainly, it's beyond a squirrel's comprehension.

19. ### CptBorkValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,418
I am in no way whatsoever disputing the Big Bang theory. Mr. Bannan is trying to show that the Big Bang implies something must have come from nothing, and I'm merely refuting that assertion. Plus his attempts at using math to support his position have been pretty ridiculous, read some of the stuff he writes about $0+0=0$ if you have the patience.

Edit:

Anyhow, I think he was (temporarily) banned because he kept repeating the same points over and over even after counterpoints were given, rather than using actual logic to support his claims and address those counterpoints. It's kind of like "nanananana, I can't hear you!" This is fine in the cesspool, but not acceptable in the math & physics section. He wouldn't even bother learning the background material relevant to the concepts he was trying to discuss, which makes it almost impossible for him to understand any counterpoints (apparently, he will only accept an explanation for complex, abstract ideas if it can be understood by a jury of laymen in court with no background in math). Every time someone would give a logical argument like $1+1=2$, he would take it and twist it around and ask something like, "so you're saying that $1$ doesn't actually exist?"

Last edited: Jul 16, 2008
20. ### Why?Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,896
Oh, I've read it and found that what he is really asking belongs in the realm of hyperreal numbers - not standard numbers. Do you know anything about hyperreal numbers? Also, I don't believe he is saying that the Big Bang implies something came from nothing - only trying to give evidence for why the theory of something coming from nothing is not ridiculous.

21. ### Why?Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,896
I think Mr. Bannan now realizes that his question belongs in the realm of hyperreal numbers. So, of course, the posters here who only know something about standard numbers could not comprehend the question. This is not Mr. Bannan's fault, nor the posters' fault, but the ignorance of all parties involved, except D.H. (who apparently knows something about hyperreal numbers). However, asking about hyperreal numbers is a legitimate math question, that unfortunately few posters seem to know anything about.

22. ### CptBorkValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,418
To deal with hyperreal numbers, he first needs to learn the axioms of real numbers and the principles of mathematical analysis, which he has never bothered to do and which can't be learned in a mere few sessions. Second, assuming he accumulates the massive wealth of advanced background material he would need to understand such concepts, there is no a priori connection between hyperreal numbers and physical reality. So the point is moot.

23. ### Why?Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,896
Have you studied hyperreal numbers?