![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Infinity|p0054927}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
Clicking on it returns a 404 error.
BR, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.87.201 ( talk) 16:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
hello. You seem to have a disagreement with my recent edit(s) on the " Infinity" article. Not sure why. You said "not helpful" though you knew they were "good-faith." You didn't really explain HOW they were supposedly a "not helpful." (By the way, you also removed a separate edit, the first one, a simple citation reference, that was put in by me, per tag request...)
To be frank, it's in violation of Wikipedia policy when you revert accurate and good-faith things, with no valid explanation. Only vandalism or truly inaccurate (or unrelated) additions should be summarily "reverted."
But you removed edits that were very accurate, sourced, as well as "good-faith." (Along with even a simple citation that was per tag request...)
Why? Like I said, you also removed a needed citation reference, in the first paragraph.....in response to tag requests. Why remove that too? Sweeping everything away in one shot, with no valid explanation...simply because YOU didn't like the other edit. Also, it's arguably in violation of WP:Ownership.
WP policy says "reverting" should RARELY be done...when in doubt, DON'T, it says. (As seen in WP:ROWN, WP:1RR, and WP:0RR) Otherwise, please take it to the article talk page..
A needed citation per tag request is "helpful", not just "good-faith"....you reverted that as well......with no valid reason.... also you didn't explain how the other edit was "not helpful". I hope we can work this out... let me know your thoughts. Thanks. ResearchRave ( talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Saying the integral from -∞ to ∞ represents the total area under the graph isn't strictly accurate- that quantity is defined as the limit of a sequence (or more strictly two sequences, as the lower limit of the integral tends to -∞ and the upper to ∞). The concept of "total area" on an infinitely long line is a little fuzzy, which is precisely what this article's about. Therefore changing it- comment here if you disagree, please. MorkaisChosen ( talk) 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This unreferenced statement is most likely false. Please read the section Typesetting#Letterpress era and look at "Diagram of a cast metal sort." Also, look at the full-sized photo of "Movable type on a composing stick on a type case" (photo at top of article). In both of these, you will see that a cast metal sort (a letter or character of moveable type) is rectangular in shape. Hence, there is no way that you can put a cast metal sort for an "8" on its side to obtain the infinity symbol. It would take a separate cast metal sort to obtain this symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJGray ( talk • contribs)
Removed the following text from the Cosmology section, because it is no more relevant to the subject of the article than other myths describing things being finite.
"In ancient cosmologies, the sky was perceived as a solid dome, or firmament. [1]"
Elroch ( talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I just had a look at this article and my first impression is that the picture is a tad unnecessary. Perhaps a single infinity symbol, but in multiple typefaces? Would it be better perhaps to consider just using a single typeface, or some other representation of infinity? I feel it detracts from the article. CorwinNewall ( talk) 05:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If the double circle is the symbol for infinity, what is then the symbol for finity; ie a single circle with a stripe in the middle, spiral, spriraling in clockwise (think I've seen this as symbol for Tangata-Manu) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.136.235 ( talk • contribs) UPDATE: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeff_Dahl#Finity_symbol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.62 ( talk) 07:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a current conflict between two versions of the opening sentence,
versus
Those who support the the first version argue, correctly, that Wikipedia articles should talk about the referent, not the word. I agree with that.
The problem is the use of the word property. Whatever infinity is, or even whether infinity exists, it is not a property. If it were a property, you would talk about, say, the stars' infinity, as you might talk about the stars' brightness or temperature. But this is a very minor usage and is surely not the topic of the article.
So the opening sentence needs to talk about infinity more as a concept or object (or related group of conceptual objects) than as a property, without being too specific about what sort of object. I think concept is a good word.
I would try something like the following:
I don't like everything about this proposed sentence but I think it's better than either of the versions being fought over. Improvements welcome. -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The #Computing section of the article currently says the following:
In the second paragraph, the claims about J and UNITY are tagged as needing citations; a reference has been given for the JavaScript claim ( Standard ECMA-262: ECMAScript Language Specification, sections 8.5 and 11.8.1–5). But this reference essentially says that JavaScript (well, ECMAScript) uses the IEEE floating-point standard (IEEE 754) for its Number type, with the exception that the various distinct NaN values defined in IEEE 754 are not necessarily distinguishable in ECMAScript.
So it seems to me that the "positive Infinity" and "negative Infinity" values in JavaScript are just IEEE floating-point infinities (or at least concepts inherited by ECMAScript from the IEEE floating-point infinities), which are discussed in the first paragraph of this section. The second paragraph is apparently talking about something different, explicit "greatest element" and "least element" values that are not just IEEE floating-point infinities. (I don't know J or UNITY, so I can't say for sure how these values behave.)
There is nothing particularly special about JavaScript's "positive Infinity" and "negative Infinity" values—any language or system that uses IEEE floating-point (i.e., most systems in use today, as far as I know) has these values too. JavaScript isn't special in this regard, and it seems to me strange and misleading to single out JavaScript as an example of the "some programming languages" that have greatest and least elements—if we count JavaScript's IEEE infinities as "greatest and least elements", then every other system using IEEE floating point also has "greatest and least elements". In any case, IEEE infinities were discussed in the first paragraph, so there's no need to repeat them in the second; I think the second paragraph is supposed to be talking about something else.
Other thoughts? — Bkell ( talk) 06:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It is critical to point out that Cantorian cardinality is a notion of size. Then criticisms of that viewpoint may be introduced. But it is not helpful to just call them different "kinds", without noting that what makes them different, according to the overwhelmingly dominant conceptualization, is their size. -- Trovatore ( talk) 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that space cannot be infinity. There is always possipility to be someone like you, in our planet, but possipility that is very small, something like one of 90^90 of peolpe are just exalty like you. So, if space is infinity, so there is infinity possiple places there is same or smaller ratio, but still being ratio, wich means is possiple to there is guy exalty like you. Right? Still this is not full fact. If there is possiple to happen everything, so it means everything possiple happens everytime. One possiple event is also to someone makes machine that breaks somehow all knew and hidden natural physic laws, wich means we are exist and do not exist same time.
Good this is headspinning. ~Numberphile fan~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.228.7 ( talk) 17:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the "minus one twelfth" nonsense. Even with that source it still remains nonsense. Comments? - DVdm ( talk) 15:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Copied from the Infinity lead:
Interestingly, the summation of all natural numbers to infinity is "minus one-twelfth".< ref name="NYT-20140203"> Overbye, Dennis (February 3, 2014). "In the End, It All Adds Up to –1/12". New York Times. Retrieved February 3, 2014.</ref>
Thank you - somewhat related (and for those in the know so-to-speak) - made the following userbox =>
This user
knows that
( NYT 2014 reference/ archive) |
esp ok perhaps if the notion is actually true of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't belong here at all. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The phrase before my edit was as follows: As in the real analysis, in complex analysis the symbol ∞, called "infinity", denotes an unsigned infinite limit. This is plainly wrong: in real analysis the symbol denotes always signed limit.-- Reciprocist ( talk) 07:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't someone at least mention the point at infinity, which appears so often in physics? (Zero reference for potential fields, location of image for an object at the focus of a concave mirror/convex lens...) 121.221.82.88 ( talk) 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It is a nontrivial problem that the section on physics makes completely unsubstantiated claims. It is almost certainly the opinion of the author and not accepted in physics that there are no infinite physical quantities. The treatment of the singularity is a good example. This is a point with infinite density. It seems the author has a particular aversion to believing in infinity and wishes to project it on the whole of physics. The section on physics needs a drastic rewrite or to be deleted altogether. Without sources, it is an editorial of original opinion and not relevant on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 ( talk) 14:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Minor issue, but nevertheless...
I had changed the symbol in the lead from "∞" (<big>∞</big>) to "" ("<math>\infty</math>), as I thought it looks much better that way. The HTML rendering gives sort of a floating symbol, whereas HTML without the <big> tag produces "∞", a symbol that is too small. The symbol was changed back to the floating —and i.m.o. ugly— "∞" by user CRGreathouse ( talk · contribs). Thoughts anyone?
Not being aware of this discussion, I just changed the opening words of the article to "Infinity (symbol: ∞)", which was promptly reverted with reference to this discussion. I strongly disagree with the current wording "Infinity (symbol: in LaTeX, or ∞ in Unicode)". We should always be focused on content, particularly in the lede of an article. The first sentence needs to tell the reader what the symbol for infinity is. The underlying font technology used to display that symbol on the screen is irrelevant. The article could explain somewhere further down how to make an infinity symbol in Latex, or what the Unicode code for the symbol is. These kinds of details are nowhere near important enough to be in the first sentence of the article. Because the Unicode symbol can be copied and pasted, it should be the sole form presented in the lede sentence. -- Srleffler ( talk) 18:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Test: This is an infinity symbol: ∞. How does that look? Fundamentally, the difference between the Latex and Unicode representations has nothing to do with Latex or Unicode; it's just that they use different default fonts. We can use Unicode; we just need to specify a font or font family that render better. If the version above doesn't look good in your browser, let me know which browser and give me the name of a font on your system that has a better-looking infinity symbol. The problem with the symbol "flying away" is because the default font used by Wikipedia on some systems has the symbol floating above the baseline. When you make that bigger, it floats up. The fix for that is not to use that font.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
<sub><span style="font-family:serif; font-size: 250%">∞</span></sub>
: ∞? That's roughly the size of the LaTeX one everyone liked: (this is a little bigger in Chrome, a little smaller in FF). I tested it in Firefox, it's different from Chrome but not necessarily bad. The <sub></sub> are definitely needed for FF, though, or else it starts flying away again. How does that look to those of you with computers that will run IE?—
Lucas
Thoms
06:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I found a better solution: ∞. Any comments?-- Srleffler ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
<span class="texhtml texhtml-big" style="font-size:150%;">∞</span>
. -
DVdm (
talk)
19:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)The second paragraph begins, "In mathematics, infinity is often treated as if it were a number." The "often" sounds temporal, as if on one day a mathematician will say that infinity is a number, and then on another day, the same mathematician will contradict herself/himself. Also, that sentence seems to imply that there is a unified mathematics with an authoritative book that spells out all of its rules. The reality is, mathematics is an ever-growing territory with a frontier where future-legendary mathematicians and future-infamous crackpots stake out the boundaries of new formalisms, new algebras, and occasionally whole new branches of mathematics.
It's not sometimes, but in some branches/systems/formalisms of mathematics that "infinity" appears in the names of number-like entities, while in other systems the concept of infinity-as-number simply does not fit in. 129.42.208.184 ( talk) 21:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't like:
means that f(t) does not bound a finite area from to
I don't think you can ever correctly write that an integral "equals" infinity. It may sometimes be a convenient shorthand William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Infinity/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
A Vital article, potential GA. Salix alba ( talk) 12:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not especially familiar with all this, so perhaps someone else can add Cantor to the history section. He's important enough to be mentioned in the article's introduction (which seems appropriate), so it looks like an oversight to leave him out of the History section. Thanks for considering this! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 19:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There is plenty of explanation on the maintenance tags about the issues. The primary issue is that there is a lot of uncited content in the article. There is also some content in the lead that sounds like original research, rather than a summary of the content in the article.
It's wrong to remove maintenance tags without addressing the issues. It's something to make the article better. Uncited content can be removed.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 01:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like to argue that the Isha Upanishad quote is not appropriate here. First, there are many translations of this particular verse. Second, infinity, or the idea of innumerability, is not necessarily what is implied. The work is more accurately referring to "all that is", not the mathematical sense of infinity. I am afraid that some unknowing individual will assume, as I did before investigation, that Isha Upanishad is a mathematical work when it is in fact a philosophical one. There should at least be a note of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.209.115 ( talk) 03:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Kindly stop reverting the article without valid reasons. Please follow Wikipedia:Editing policy, when doing edits. The book by Dr. Sarvapalli RadhaKrishnan is a valid source according to Wikipedia citation sources. Please feel free to remove citations that you feel are not acceptable, but do not remove the whole edit if one of the citations is not acceptable. Wilkn ( talk) 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Please stop being ignorant. There is no such necessity of distinguishing or arbitrarily defining a work to be mathematical work or philosophical work to understand when a concept originated or how it evolved. The distinction of subjects becomes more clear once they have evolved, not when they are evolving. In India Sanskrit Grammar, idea of Zero, decimal number system all are written in books that are devoted to deities like Shiva etc, formal mathematics started in India with formal numbers and number systems but as part of religious texts (you cannot deny it on lie detector, only deny it using manipulation and only till accepting truth becomes a sign of mental wellness), but you cannot deny these facts claiming that Indians were not writing mathematics. Some people even try to manipulate and wiggle out of their complex by claiming that Upanishads are not philosophical texts but speculative texts, despite tonnes of German philosopher banking on ideas in those Upanishads and rest of modern philosophers banking on those German philosophers. So this wiggling out of complex claiming indian text to be this or that will happen for some more time. We do have Kerala school of mathematics that started calculas 200 years before Newton/Leibniz and eventually people will see reason that some Arab trader must have brought that initial knowledge to europe but for the time being people can safely ignore that part and satisfy their euro-centric complex. Even when India predates something obviously such as in mathematics or philosophy, the biased wikipedia editors from europe/USA will generally write Greek part first, just to help clam their ego. Even when Greeks, Arabs or German themselves will vouch that the idea seems to come from India, the US/UK based editors find it hard to digest. The Isha Upanishad's Poornamidam Shloka uses proper term for infinite that is "absolute/complete", the word infinite in reality is not proper for quantity or number, it is proper only for series, because literal meaning of infinite is one that is not finite or limited, but in reality the number is "complete" in such a way that even when you subtract or add complete to it, it stays the same and the Upanishad defines exactly same properties in just few words in just one shloka how it is complete, by saying that you add anything to it or subtract anything form it, it remains complete, a few more things. You cannot respect intellect without having both honesty (truthfulness) and level of intellect you are observing. In fact being truthful is a prerequisite to being intellectual, you are only as intelligent as you can truthfully represent, the moment you stop representing truths as they are, your intellect has fallen short. This extraordinary note of mine I am copy pasting, so if needed I can add it back here. But feel free to wiggle out of complex by removing it if you want, I will come sometime later and add it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant71 ( talk • contribs) 2:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Please be civil and provide reliable sources for edits, and discuss any additions here rather than edit-warring. While moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard is a reasonable way to resolve this, it should only be used if discussion here is inconclusive. Try discussing here for at least 24 hours. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about the concept of infinity. The mantra is mathematical-philosophical introduction to the concept of infinity. It is given in Devanagri script and its English transliteration is below.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||
Om poornamadah poornamidam poornaat poornamudachyate |
Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishṣyate ||
which means: "That" is infinite. "This" is infinite. Infinite comes from Infinite. Take infinite away from infinite, the remainder is infinite." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = infinite. Other interpretations of the word, 'poorna' is are full and perfect [2] [3] [4].
References
Boring
|
---|
Kindly, furnish any objections to the version below: In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about the concept of infinity. The mantra is mathematical-philosophical introduction to the concept of infinity. It is given in Devanagri script and its English transliteration is below. ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते || Om poornamadah poornamidam poornaat poornamudachyate | Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishṣyate || which means: "That" is infinite. "This" is infinite. Infinite comes from Infinite. Take infinite away from infinite, the remainder is infinite." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = infinite. Other interpretations of the word, 'poorna' is are full and perfect [2] [3] [4] Regards, Wilkn ( talk) 20:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC) References
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Infinity|p0054927}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
Clicking on it returns a 404 error.
BR, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.87.201 ( talk) 16:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
hello. You seem to have a disagreement with my recent edit(s) on the " Infinity" article. Not sure why. You said "not helpful" though you knew they were "good-faith." You didn't really explain HOW they were supposedly a "not helpful." (By the way, you also removed a separate edit, the first one, a simple citation reference, that was put in by me, per tag request...)
To be frank, it's in violation of Wikipedia policy when you revert accurate and good-faith things, with no valid explanation. Only vandalism or truly inaccurate (or unrelated) additions should be summarily "reverted."
But you removed edits that were very accurate, sourced, as well as "good-faith." (Along with even a simple citation that was per tag request...)
Why? Like I said, you also removed a needed citation reference, in the first paragraph.....in response to tag requests. Why remove that too? Sweeping everything away in one shot, with no valid explanation...simply because YOU didn't like the other edit. Also, it's arguably in violation of WP:Ownership.
WP policy says "reverting" should RARELY be done...when in doubt, DON'T, it says. (As seen in WP:ROWN, WP:1RR, and WP:0RR) Otherwise, please take it to the article talk page..
A needed citation per tag request is "helpful", not just "good-faith"....you reverted that as well......with no valid reason.... also you didn't explain how the other edit was "not helpful". I hope we can work this out... let me know your thoughts. Thanks. ResearchRave ( talk) 02:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Saying the integral from -∞ to ∞ represents the total area under the graph isn't strictly accurate- that quantity is defined as the limit of a sequence (or more strictly two sequences, as the lower limit of the integral tends to -∞ and the upper to ∞). The concept of "total area" on an infinitely long line is a little fuzzy, which is precisely what this article's about. Therefore changing it- comment here if you disagree, please. MorkaisChosen ( talk) 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This unreferenced statement is most likely false. Please read the section Typesetting#Letterpress era and look at "Diagram of a cast metal sort." Also, look at the full-sized photo of "Movable type on a composing stick on a type case" (photo at top of article). In both of these, you will see that a cast metal sort (a letter or character of moveable type) is rectangular in shape. Hence, there is no way that you can put a cast metal sort for an "8" on its side to obtain the infinity symbol. It would take a separate cast metal sort to obtain this symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJGray ( talk • contribs)
Removed the following text from the Cosmology section, because it is no more relevant to the subject of the article than other myths describing things being finite.
"In ancient cosmologies, the sky was perceived as a solid dome, or firmament. [1]"
Elroch ( talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I just had a look at this article and my first impression is that the picture is a tad unnecessary. Perhaps a single infinity symbol, but in multiple typefaces? Would it be better perhaps to consider just using a single typeface, or some other representation of infinity? I feel it detracts from the article. CorwinNewall ( talk) 05:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If the double circle is the symbol for infinity, what is then the symbol for finity; ie a single circle with a stripe in the middle, spiral, spriraling in clockwise (think I've seen this as symbol for Tangata-Manu) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.136.235 ( talk • contribs) UPDATE: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeff_Dahl#Finity_symbol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.62 ( talk) 07:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
There is a current conflict between two versions of the opening sentence,
versus
Those who support the the first version argue, correctly, that Wikipedia articles should talk about the referent, not the word. I agree with that.
The problem is the use of the word property. Whatever infinity is, or even whether infinity exists, it is not a property. If it were a property, you would talk about, say, the stars' infinity, as you might talk about the stars' brightness or temperature. But this is a very minor usage and is surely not the topic of the article.
So the opening sentence needs to talk about infinity more as a concept or object (or related group of conceptual objects) than as a property, without being too specific about what sort of object. I think concept is a good word.
I would try something like the following:
I don't like everything about this proposed sentence but I think it's better than either of the versions being fought over. Improvements welcome. -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The #Computing section of the article currently says the following:
In the second paragraph, the claims about J and UNITY are tagged as needing citations; a reference has been given for the JavaScript claim ( Standard ECMA-262: ECMAScript Language Specification, sections 8.5 and 11.8.1–5). But this reference essentially says that JavaScript (well, ECMAScript) uses the IEEE floating-point standard (IEEE 754) for its Number type, with the exception that the various distinct NaN values defined in IEEE 754 are not necessarily distinguishable in ECMAScript.
So it seems to me that the "positive Infinity" and "negative Infinity" values in JavaScript are just IEEE floating-point infinities (or at least concepts inherited by ECMAScript from the IEEE floating-point infinities), which are discussed in the first paragraph of this section. The second paragraph is apparently talking about something different, explicit "greatest element" and "least element" values that are not just IEEE floating-point infinities. (I don't know J or UNITY, so I can't say for sure how these values behave.)
There is nothing particularly special about JavaScript's "positive Infinity" and "negative Infinity" values—any language or system that uses IEEE floating-point (i.e., most systems in use today, as far as I know) has these values too. JavaScript isn't special in this regard, and it seems to me strange and misleading to single out JavaScript as an example of the "some programming languages" that have greatest and least elements—if we count JavaScript's IEEE infinities as "greatest and least elements", then every other system using IEEE floating point also has "greatest and least elements". In any case, IEEE infinities were discussed in the first paragraph, so there's no need to repeat them in the second; I think the second paragraph is supposed to be talking about something else.
Other thoughts? — Bkell ( talk) 06:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It is critical to point out that Cantorian cardinality is a notion of size. Then criticisms of that viewpoint may be introduced. But it is not helpful to just call them different "kinds", without noting that what makes them different, according to the overwhelmingly dominant conceptualization, is their size. -- Trovatore ( talk) 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that space cannot be infinity. There is always possipility to be someone like you, in our planet, but possipility that is very small, something like one of 90^90 of peolpe are just exalty like you. So, if space is infinity, so there is infinity possiple places there is same or smaller ratio, but still being ratio, wich means is possiple to there is guy exalty like you. Right? Still this is not full fact. If there is possiple to happen everything, so it means everything possiple happens everytime. One possiple event is also to someone makes machine that breaks somehow all knew and hidden natural physic laws, wich means we are exist and do not exist same time.
Good this is headspinning. ~Numberphile fan~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.228.7 ( talk) 17:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the "minus one twelfth" nonsense. Even with that source it still remains nonsense. Comments? - DVdm ( talk) 15:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Copied from the Infinity lead:
Interestingly, the summation of all natural numbers to infinity is "minus one-twelfth".< ref name="NYT-20140203"> Overbye, Dennis (February 3, 2014). "In the End, It All Adds Up to –1/12". New York Times. Retrieved February 3, 2014.</ref>
Thank you - somewhat related (and for those in the know so-to-speak) - made the following userbox =>
This user
knows that
( NYT 2014 reference/ archive) |
esp ok perhaps if the notion is actually true of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't belong here at all. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The phrase before my edit was as follows: As in the real analysis, in complex analysis the symbol ∞, called "infinity", denotes an unsigned infinite limit. This is plainly wrong: in real analysis the symbol denotes always signed limit.-- Reciprocist ( talk) 07:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't someone at least mention the point at infinity, which appears so often in physics? (Zero reference for potential fields, location of image for an object at the focus of a concave mirror/convex lens...) 121.221.82.88 ( talk) 15:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
It is a nontrivial problem that the section on physics makes completely unsubstantiated claims. It is almost certainly the opinion of the author and not accepted in physics that there are no infinite physical quantities. The treatment of the singularity is a good example. This is a point with infinite density. It seems the author has a particular aversion to believing in infinity and wishes to project it on the whole of physics. The section on physics needs a drastic rewrite or to be deleted altogether. Without sources, it is an editorial of original opinion and not relevant on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 ( talk) 14:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Minor issue, but nevertheless...
I had changed the symbol in the lead from "∞" (<big>∞</big>) to "" ("<math>\infty</math>), as I thought it looks much better that way. The HTML rendering gives sort of a floating symbol, whereas HTML without the <big> tag produces "∞", a symbol that is too small. The symbol was changed back to the floating —and i.m.o. ugly— "∞" by user CRGreathouse ( talk · contribs). Thoughts anyone?
Not being aware of this discussion, I just changed the opening words of the article to "Infinity (symbol: ∞)", which was promptly reverted with reference to this discussion. I strongly disagree with the current wording "Infinity (symbol: in LaTeX, or ∞ in Unicode)". We should always be focused on content, particularly in the lede of an article. The first sentence needs to tell the reader what the symbol for infinity is. The underlying font technology used to display that symbol on the screen is irrelevant. The article could explain somewhere further down how to make an infinity symbol in Latex, or what the Unicode code for the symbol is. These kinds of details are nowhere near important enough to be in the first sentence of the article. Because the Unicode symbol can be copied and pasted, it should be the sole form presented in the lede sentence. -- Srleffler ( talk) 18:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Test: This is an infinity symbol: ∞. How does that look? Fundamentally, the difference between the Latex and Unicode representations has nothing to do with Latex or Unicode; it's just that they use different default fonts. We can use Unicode; we just need to specify a font or font family that render better. If the version above doesn't look good in your browser, let me know which browser and give me the name of a font on your system that has a better-looking infinity symbol. The problem with the symbol "flying away" is because the default font used by Wikipedia on some systems has the symbol floating above the baseline. When you make that bigger, it floats up. The fix for that is not to use that font.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
<sub><span style="font-family:serif; font-size: 250%">∞</span></sub>
: ∞? That's roughly the size of the LaTeX one everyone liked: (this is a little bigger in Chrome, a little smaller in FF). I tested it in Firefox, it's different from Chrome but not necessarily bad. The <sub></sub> are definitely needed for FF, though, or else it starts flying away again. How does that look to those of you with computers that will run IE?—
Lucas
Thoms
06:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I found a better solution: ∞. Any comments?-- Srleffler ( talk) 18:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
<span class="texhtml texhtml-big" style="font-size:150%;">∞</span>
. -
DVdm (
talk)
19:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)The second paragraph begins, "In mathematics, infinity is often treated as if it were a number." The "often" sounds temporal, as if on one day a mathematician will say that infinity is a number, and then on another day, the same mathematician will contradict herself/himself. Also, that sentence seems to imply that there is a unified mathematics with an authoritative book that spells out all of its rules. The reality is, mathematics is an ever-growing territory with a frontier where future-legendary mathematicians and future-infamous crackpots stake out the boundaries of new formalisms, new algebras, and occasionally whole new branches of mathematics.
It's not sometimes, but in some branches/systems/formalisms of mathematics that "infinity" appears in the names of number-like entities, while in other systems the concept of infinity-as-number simply does not fit in. 129.42.208.184 ( talk) 21:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't like:
means that f(t) does not bound a finite area from to
I don't think you can ever correctly write that an integral "equals" infinity. It may sometimes be a convenient shorthand William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Infinity/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
A Vital article, potential GA. Salix alba ( talk) 12:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 13:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not especially familiar with all this, so perhaps someone else can add Cantor to the history section. He's important enough to be mentioned in the article's introduction (which seems appropriate), so it looks like an oversight to leave him out of the History section. Thanks for considering this! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host ( talk) 19:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
There is plenty of explanation on the maintenance tags about the issues. The primary issue is that there is a lot of uncited content in the article. There is also some content in the lead that sounds like original research, rather than a summary of the content in the article.
It's wrong to remove maintenance tags without addressing the issues. It's something to make the article better. Uncited content can be removed.– CaroleHenson ( talk) 01:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Infinity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I would like to argue that the Isha Upanishad quote is not appropriate here. First, there are many translations of this particular verse. Second, infinity, or the idea of innumerability, is not necessarily what is implied. The work is more accurately referring to "all that is", not the mathematical sense of infinity. I am afraid that some unknowing individual will assume, as I did before investigation, that Isha Upanishad is a mathematical work when it is in fact a philosophical one. There should at least be a note of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.209.115 ( talk) 03:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Kindly stop reverting the article without valid reasons. Please follow Wikipedia:Editing policy, when doing edits. The book by Dr. Sarvapalli RadhaKrishnan is a valid source according to Wikipedia citation sources. Please feel free to remove citations that you feel are not acceptable, but do not remove the whole edit if one of the citations is not acceptable. Wilkn ( talk) 13:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Please stop being ignorant. There is no such necessity of distinguishing or arbitrarily defining a work to be mathematical work or philosophical work to understand when a concept originated or how it evolved. The distinction of subjects becomes more clear once they have evolved, not when they are evolving. In India Sanskrit Grammar, idea of Zero, decimal number system all are written in books that are devoted to deities like Shiva etc, formal mathematics started in India with formal numbers and number systems but as part of religious texts (you cannot deny it on lie detector, only deny it using manipulation and only till accepting truth becomes a sign of mental wellness), but you cannot deny these facts claiming that Indians were not writing mathematics. Some people even try to manipulate and wiggle out of their complex by claiming that Upanishads are not philosophical texts but speculative texts, despite tonnes of German philosopher banking on ideas in those Upanishads and rest of modern philosophers banking on those German philosophers. So this wiggling out of complex claiming indian text to be this or that will happen for some more time. We do have Kerala school of mathematics that started calculas 200 years before Newton/Leibniz and eventually people will see reason that some Arab trader must have brought that initial knowledge to europe but for the time being people can safely ignore that part and satisfy their euro-centric complex. Even when India predates something obviously such as in mathematics or philosophy, the biased wikipedia editors from europe/USA will generally write Greek part first, just to help clam their ego. Even when Greeks, Arabs or German themselves will vouch that the idea seems to come from India, the US/UK based editors find it hard to digest. The Isha Upanishad's Poornamidam Shloka uses proper term for infinite that is "absolute/complete", the word infinite in reality is not proper for quantity or number, it is proper only for series, because literal meaning of infinite is one that is not finite or limited, but in reality the number is "complete" in such a way that even when you subtract or add complete to it, it stays the same and the Upanishad defines exactly same properties in just few words in just one shloka how it is complete, by saying that you add anything to it or subtract anything form it, it remains complete, a few more things. You cannot respect intellect without having both honesty (truthfulness) and level of intellect you are observing. In fact being truthful is a prerequisite to being intellectual, you are only as intelligent as you can truthfully represent, the moment you stop representing truths as they are, your intellect has fallen short. This extraordinary note of mine I am copy pasting, so if needed I can add it back here. But feel free to wiggle out of complex by removing it if you want, I will come sometime later and add it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skant71 ( talk • contribs) 2:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Please be civil and provide reliable sources for edits, and discuss any additions here rather than edit-warring. While moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard is a reasonable way to resolve this, it should only be used if discussion here is inconclusive. Try discussing here for at least 24 hours. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about the concept of infinity. The mantra is mathematical-philosophical introduction to the concept of infinity. It is given in Devanagri script and its English transliteration is below.
ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ||
Om poornamadah poornamidam poornaat poornamudachyate |
Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishṣyate ||
which means: "That" is infinite. "This" is infinite. Infinite comes from Infinite. Take infinite away from infinite, the remainder is infinite." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = infinite. Other interpretations of the word, 'poorna' is are full and perfect [2] [3] [4].
References
Boring
|
---|
Kindly, furnish any objections to the version below: In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about the concept of infinity. The mantra is mathematical-philosophical introduction to the concept of infinity. It is given in Devanagri script and its English transliteration is below. ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते || Om poornamadah poornamidam poornaat poornamudachyate | Poornasya poornamaadaaya poornamevaavashishṣyate || which means: "That" is infinite. "This" is infinite. Infinite comes from Infinite. Take infinite away from infinite, the remainder is infinite." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = infinite. Other interpretations of the word, 'poorna' is are full and perfect [2] [3] [4] Regards, Wilkn ( talk) 20:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC) References
|