• magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Quora has many dubious answers. I wouldn’t use it for any point of argument.

        Infinity is not a number. It’s a concept. You’ll find yourself in many paradoxes if you start treating infinity as a number (you can easily prove that 1 = 2 for example).

        By your argument, is 1/|x| negative infinity when x is 0? The expression is strictly positive, so it doesn’t make sense to assign it a negative value. But your version of infinity would make it both positive and negative.

        Another one: try to plot y = (x^2 - 1) * 1/(x - 1). What happens to y when x approaches 1? If you look at a plot, you’ll see that y actually approaches 2. What would happen if we treat 1/(1-1) as your version of infinity? Should we consider that y could also approach -2, even if it doesn’t make any sense in this context?

        • Doctor xNo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Curious I found something that proofs my whole point exactly to the letter though… I must be exactly the same kind of wrong as that other person that actually drew you the circle with it as proof…

          C’mon, now you’re just reaching.

          • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The circle is just a visualization of a concept, not a proof. The Quora answer clearly refers to this concept: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ProjectivelyExtendedRealNumbers.html

            The page clearly states this is a non-standard number system. You cannot use it in the general case. It is a common practice for mathematicians to come up with new number systems with new rules and see where it leads to. Maybe there’s a practical use for it?

            This is the same case here. Some mathematician came up with a new number system where 1/0 is treated as a new number with special properties and see what it leads to. Any new conclusion made in this number system is probably not applicable in any standard number system.

            The article also mentions this number system: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/AffinelyExtendedRealNumbers.html

            Similarly this is a number system that has been constructed such that infinity exists as a number, but in this case negative infinity is a distinct number. 1/0 is not defined under this system as a result. This is a non-standard system as well, so shouldn’t be used unless it’s clearly intended.

            • dukk@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              This. 1/0 does not exist in our number system. Alternate number systems allow 1/0 to exist at the expense of many useful properties of mathematics that (OC?) OP doesn’t seem to understand. Not everything in math has to make sense: we simply gave ourselves some set rules, and then built up a system off the consequences of those rules. If 1/0 cannot exist within those rules, then that’s it. If you’re going to argue against centuries of mathematical advancements then so be it, I can’t stop you, but it’s pretty obviously a losing battle.

          • MacGuffin94@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude you picked an obscure sub field of mathematics defined by looping a set around a sphere in order to make both positive and negative infinity equal. That’s like saying sea food is bad because I asked something allergic to shell fish if they like it.