On 11/26/2024 01:27 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000024, 24.11.2024 um 19:16 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
On 11/24/2024 12:53 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
On 11/12/2024 02:57 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Riemann was a brilliant geometer who made the elementary error of
reifying space by claiming parallel lines could meet. Schwarzschild
and
Einstein carried through with that mistake, making people believe
it was
intelligent.
>
Art students know there's a point at infinity.
>
'at' and 'point' mean essentially the same thing.
>
But it is, of course, wrong to assign a point to infinity, because
infinity is not a point and it is impossible to be there (hence there is
no 'at').
>
>
A whole line at infinity of them, even,
>
Jan
>
>
One idea about the quadrant is to shrink it to a box,
>
It is also impossible to shrink infinity in any way, because infinity
will remain infinitely large, even after significant shrinking.
>
given that the ray from origin (in a Cartesian space)
in x = y is an "identity dimension" and rather "original"
itself, then that the hyperbola, xy = 1 andx = 1/y and y = 1/x,
its corner, is parameterized to go out the identity line
and result in the limit connecting (0, \infty) and (\infty, 0).
>
>
>
inf = 1/0
>
hence
>
inf * 0 =1
>
hence
>
0/inf = 1/inf²
>
;-)
>
but infinity is also not a number!
>
>
TH
...
The "infinity, mathematical" is an interesting thing,
I enjoy studying it and have studied it since at least
thirty years, though also at least about forty-five
years ago the word "INFINITY" was in the language.
Sort of like "ALL" and other universals - INFINITY
is always in the context.
That "infinity-many iota-values either sum to or produce 1",
is the idea of standard infinitesimals that just like a
line integral and the line elements or path integral, in
a line, and path elements, makes that mathematical and
the mathematical physics particularly has infinity.
Are you familiar with "mathematical formalism the
modern mathematics way: axiomatic set theory with
descriptive set theory in model theory"?
See, here there are at least three models of continuous
domains, where the usual account of "set theory's" (really
meaning the "a standard linear curriculum" as with regards
to what "mathematical foundations", is, i.e. set theory
plus models of rationals after integers then LUB and
measure 1.0 furthermore axioms), the usual account, has
one, the Archimedean field reals, that here there are
first line reals, or infinitely-many constant iota-values
in a row, line-reals, then field-reals for example by
the standard formalism, then signal-reals, and getting
involved with real halving- and doubling- spaces that
taking individua of continua sometimes doubles and
sometimes halves, the real analytical character.
So, I must imagine that you have each these three
kinds of continuous domains in your theory, as with
regards then to various law(s), plural, of large
numbers (infinities, actually, effectively, practically,
or potentially).
Surely your mathematical physics for real analysis at some
point employs these three, not inter-changeable or
equi-interpretable, yet according to "bridges" or
"ponts" pretty much the integers or bounds, like they
are called the path integral or real numbers or
signal theory.
Yes, no?
The Universe Is Not A Sphere
Re: The Universe Is Not A Sphere
