Celestia Forums

Of course, if we know a ( a = 4 for exemple), "i" must be infinity to be near of 0. "i" is not a variable, the mathematical constant for infinity (???) is meant! And the question is what is a / ??? for all a != 0 and a!= ??? ? My arguments point out that You cannot compute this value, it's just not...

Fightspit wrote:For me, the equation:

Code: Select all

a / i = 0

gives:

Code: Select all

a = 0    for all i

That's all !

What do You mean with "for all i"? In this part of the discussion, "i" is short for "infinity"! (I don't see an easy way for writing the mathematical infinity symbol in this forum, that's why I chose "i".)

Changing a / i = 0 to a = 0 * i is like doing this: a / i = 0 a * i / i = 0 * i a * 1 = 0 * i a = 0 * i Isn't i / i an indeterminate form? So it shouldn't be treated like the number one. Zero times infinity is also an indeterminate form. That's exactly what I think! Moreover, I am sure that "a / i"...

fsgregs: I think now we found a point that we can both agree to. It MAY be that You find infinite copies of Yourself in an infinite universe. But it does not follow as a coerciveness out of the universe's infinity that You find infinite copies of Yourself. When You fly through the infinite universe ...

Some of the discussion here points out how unlikely it would be to find an exact duplicate of us somewhere else in an infinite universe. Selden put it in molecular/atomic terms. What are the odds that there exists another body in the universe that has the same number, and same arrangement of atoms ...

It seems to me that trying to equate a random collection of molecules with a unique element of a number system isn't appropriate. Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? You are right. This is an imprecision in my explanation. Numbers are unique whithin their set by definition. The same is not...

You didn't convince me that there would be infinite copies of everything in an infinite universe. Your basic assumption was that in an infinite amount of objects, every object would be contained unlimited times. (Or at least more often than once.) That's wrong. Take the natural numbers for example. ...