Physicist frequently use infinity when talking about fields (ex. V = integral of E*dr from 0 to infinity) but if the fields were infinite, be they gravitational or electric, they would span the entire universe and all things effected by it would collapse into a single, crushing point. This has clearly not happened and is not happening. QED, infinity is not real.
>>80
I bet you're so le high, le reddit/b/ro. Le 10 upboats for /b/eing so le high, le cool as shit XD
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-28 16:35
>>79
You're a thing of the past, libtard. You've already lost.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-28 16:40
>>38
This dimension of ours (that obviously u don't belong in) is linked with time, time defines every thing, you know the number 10 exponent 100 after the maximum possibility of finding a exact copy of a body becomes possible and maximum, then why can't there be an infinity, that would not make scenes that reputation could be finite
>>93
Actually, Nazis are the real non-conformists today, in our world controlled by the Jews. All these anarchists and punks are just subservient shabbos-goyim, happily working for Jewish corporations.
So all progressive people become Nazis.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-28 19:55
>>94
I wish the Nazi's had destroyed Russia in WWII.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-28 20:03
>>95
I wish the Nazi's had saved France from Jews in WWII.
Wondering, is that a special case.. or the general case..?
two's compliment is 0.5 or 50%, so if the squirrel needs/wants to only move 10%, what do you take 1/0.9 = 1.111 ?! ^^ that looks about right i think =), scale is kinda arbitrary, but easily fixed..
+ a /prog/ Quote of the day nominee Infinity is seldom over-estimated!
dubs maximus !
It probably should still be an open problem, as to whether the series 1 / n^2 is truly bounded..? the remaining fractions are kind of unstable as far as i can tell, and i don't like it =) there's an entire infinity for things to go wrong....
I did test the first 3 Billion(!) terms (took a couple of minutes in octave), and it was still a fair way away from 2 though, and slowing..
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-28 22:24
>>94
your head is so far up your ass you can lick the inside of your stomach
...I still dont think n^2 is fast enough to be bounded ^^
i even tried 1/0.995, but the radical is still outpaced by even a very slow exponential when you extend the graph a bit ie 1.005^4000 is still 5x larger than 10000^2
tried again with 0.99995...
I'm starting to think i've found something interesting ^^
Is there a good solid understandable proof that the sum of the series 1 / n^2 Is bounded?
But you should try to prove it for a few days if you have the time. It may be fun and rewarding if you have enough of start point on it to make some progress.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-28 23:27
>>99
You're the moron from the banana programming thread. Get the fuck out already.
..it kind of needs to counter the simple (assumed-) fact that a bounded series needs to be 'x / some exponential' in order to come to rest at a finite number (by virtue of the fractional remainders)?
muahaha just wait till i learn calculus !! xD
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-28 23:33
I CAN PROVE INFINIT IS REAL CAUSE IF I DON'T STOP COUNTING DA NUMBERS DON'T STOP COMING
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 0:17
>>103 ty, there are lots of proofs linked from there...
here is one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_test
But is it flawed ?! It says the series 1 / n is infinite, because the sum of the area under the curve is infinite (...which is okay, no disagreement yet..)
But then why would 1 / n^2 not be infinite, since there will always be a small positive value under the curve for any value of n....
Even 1 / 2^n should be infinite by the same token.... argh am i doing it wrong or is it broken?!
obviously you have to ignore the part of the graph where x < ~0.5 ? (to make it simple, doesn't need to be 0.5 exactly but should be 0 < x < 1).. but even in the 1 / 2^n case, if it stays positive and extends to infinity.... then that is very close to being infinite by my own definition... and then ugh, you know i'm not going to bother counting to infinity, simply by definition it is impossible...
The only reason i would believe 1/2^n is finite under that proof, is that i only just finished proving it otherwise ^^ but i guess my definition too may be faulty.. and probably is =)
Still, shouldn't it be enough to show that the 'finite boundary'(?) of 'series'(??) is an exponential... (didn't i show that already?)
Plus, wouldn't it be cooler (^^) if the series 1 / n^2 does sum to infinity ? =)
trips !!! ^^
alright, to show the finite boundary is exponential, pick an exponential, and add 0.0000000000000000000000001 (etc) once (to one term only), and it will exceed its boundary by that amount.... hmm what does that prove.. lol
what about adding to all values above some term n, some small amount? (this amount will also grow(? to some extent(?) in comparison..?) as the exponential accelerates past..?)
what else could you do...? try to sum an infinite number of infintismals? =/
maybe, to model the increase, add another finite system..? (ie another (smaller?) exponential...)
...but then, wont you end up adding an infinite number of extra systems...? and then ? can that even be finite..?
^^ connect 4 get
just had to check, it is addition hey =) i almost thought it was subtraction for a second, which would balance itself pretty nicely... but no, now i'm fairly convinced.. =D
bout the only question left, is can you have the sum of an infinite number of exponential series that fall off exponentially, and still be finite?
Could that possibly describe 1/n^2 ..?