![]() | 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 |
Nothing useful here.
|
---|
There is much talk about net neutrality and how Wikipedia is the harbinger of it. It is not true. As is apparent in the case of inclusion of an ancient Indian text that indubitably talks about the concept, this idea is being suffocated by some biased editors, most probably of European origin. It is sad because Europe is a great continent and has some really big contributions to mankind. By being thus petty in attempting to suffocate contributions by other civilizations, in my understanding, we are just belittling the great works of our civilization. I posted the following: It is sometimes alleged that the concept of infinity first originated in the Indian civilization as one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE. The mantra is given in Devanagri script below. ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते || which means: That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect. [1]. The debate arises because of translation difficulties between English and other languages. Simply put, the base word 'poorna' means complete or perfect. A question arises: are the words complete or perfect and infinity synonyms. An indirect way to answer the question is to look at the concept of infinity rather than the meaning of the word poorna. Infinity - Infinity = Infinity. The second line of the sholok says exactly that. On the other hand Complete - complete = zero. Another interpretation of the word is full [2] [3]. However, again since full - full = zero, the meaning full also does not satisfy the second line. The only constant that can satisfy the identity quoted in the second line is infinty. The debate however is not conclusive because satisfaction of the identity does not imply that the writer of the sholok was expressing infinity indeed. References
I tried to be as careful to cater to any bruised egos. (Please read my edit). Is there any doubt that such an Upnishad existed, I have cited the Wikipage and that page cites proper publications for the Upanishad. Are each of the Wikipedia pages stand alone entities? If we start providing all the citations, each page would become bulky and unwieldy? Use of Wikipages to distribute citations is a prevalent editing methodology. I also cited from the published book of Honorable second president of India. The section just above "Early Greek" is doing exactly the same thing. I am a researcher and have some publications to my credit. I have no pride in making this addition. I did not do it, how can I have pride? I am doing it because Wikipedia as a share knowledge source should have all relevant information about a topic. There are other attempts to make the same additions, which were similarly rebuffed by the biased editors, without giving specific problems. The edits were just reverted. Anyways, I am looking for suggestions on the following: In its present state what parts of my edits are unacceptable and why? What else need to be added to make the unacceptable parts acceptable? Please provide specific feedback, so that we can come to a consensus regarding this edit. Regards, Wilkn ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
References Again - the same bias without any supported citations. I have provided authentic translation, but you are making blanket statement without any citations. Provide citations that poorna does not mean infinite. Provide citations that my citations are not accurate. You view point has greater value that the published books? Provide citations that it is a minority point of view. Sir - you are an editor, if I may, just an editor. You have no authority whatsoever to challenge published work. Can any constant other than infinity satisfy the identity stated in the sholok? Kindly be specific in your responses to the question asked rather than equivocating. You seem to be practicing, what you are charging me of. The questions again are: In its present state what parts of my edits are unacceptable and why? What else need to be added to make the unacceptable parts acceptable? Can any constant other than infinity satisfy the identity stated in the sholok? Please provide specific feedback, so that we can come to a consensus regarding this edit. Wilkn ( talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
My follow up question is why are the three sources that I cite not considered reliable sources? As per my reading they are indeed reliable sources. I am reproducing exactly verbatim from the quoted sources. I am not putting any of my views over there as alleged. I have included citations that say that the sholok talks about 'infinite' as that it is a universally held understanding, including by western scholars such as Yeat, W.B. Why is the section about Early Greek fine? I was not even able to find the references when I searched for them. Apeiron can mean infinity? And what are the WP:RS sources that attest that Zeno of Elna came up with the concept of infinity. Kindly, calm down your alert systems, we are too small of entities to be able to represent Indian and/or Western contributions. For example, India and some western nations already have a space crafts in Mars. Now if we try to block publishing about it on Wikipedia, I doubt if we can hide it. Trovatore, thank you for sharing the history, things are obviously more in perspective now. Wilkn ( talk) 21:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Deacon, Trovatore! I possibly see you point more clearly now. I added those "weasel words" because I was on the defensive because of blanket reverting of mine and other people's edits without giving any reason. (Please see response of Mr. Connlley above). I thought the editors do not want to add the edits because they are getting intimidated by such an early Indian contribution and their European antecedents rather than the merit of the contribution. I have modified my addition as follows: In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about a parallel concept of 'perfect.' The mantra 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 perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = perfect. Another interpretation of the word, 'poorna' is full [2] [3]. The identity stated can only be satisfied by the mathematical constant of infinity or infinite because complete - complete or full - full = 0 and not complete or full. Only infinity - infinity = infinity. citation needed. References
What do you think of it now? My question about the problems with Early Greek section still remain unanswered. (As a side note, we need to add the identities of infinity (infinity (+-x/) infinity = infinity to the article and reference indeterminacy here as well. for example infinity/infinity = 0, infinity and 1.) Thanks! Wilkn ( talk) 22:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Trovatore - progress can be made only if both sides are willing. As a native speaker of the language, poorna and infinity are synonyms. The problem here is how to convince the obvious to any native speaker to a group of non-native, possibly prejudiced audience.:-) Please address my latest questions. Thanks! Wilkn ( talk) 23:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Side note on the rejected mediationWilkn's attempt to invoke mediation appears to have been limited to the narrowest possible issue, namely whether a particular word in the Upanishads should be translated as "infinity". In point of fact, it is not difficult to find translations that render it as "infinity". The Yeats one, in particular, does not, and the fact that Wilkn claimed specifically that Yeats did interpret the Upanishads as referring to infinity may — bring back bad memories. But this is not really the point. It is entirely beyond my competence to render an opinion on whether the word is correctly translated as "infinity" in those translations that do so. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that it is. That still doesn't justify the text that Wilkn wants to add. Supposing the text is referring to infinity, it still doesn't seem to say anything substantial about it. (Wilkn appears to think that ∞−∞ = ∞ is a valid mathematical equation, but it is not; in any context I can think of, ∞−∞ is undefined.) If it can be established that the word is correctly translated as "infinity", then I might be persuaded that this is worth a single sentence in the text, as a very early example in which the concept of infinity is attested. Any more substantial mention, especially any claim that the concept "originated" (or even is "alleged to have originated") with the Upanishads, would demand citations speaking to that particular point. -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Nothing next: no one is sympathetic to your attempts and there is clear consensus against every edit you have proposed. You should find some other way to occupy yourself. -- JBL ( talk) 12:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
English translation of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad by Swami Nikhilananda. page 61. Also, please see wikipedia page Shanti Mantrafor more translation references. Let me know if you have any other follow up questions. Wilkn ( talk) 03:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
|
how any of these links are an actual problem to the any reader...
Why it is there is an article titled concept since it is such an ordinary word, if your understanding were true, no-one would need to read the article, since the topic is such an ordinary fact of life 23h112e ( talk) 21:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Why your opinion should supercede my own in any case, while you state policy, although how, since there is the possibility of error on your account, as indicated by ther confusion on your part between ordinary and everyday, and the non-absolute description in policy of behaviours with respect to under and overlinking, a factor to which I refer to due to you so helpfully including mention in your editorial summary. 23h112e ( talk) 21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 23h112e ( talk) 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
for example:
any number, the largest number is... (there isn't one) obviously, there is no largest number - unless it is a counted number of actual things, anything obviously.
To re-iterate, the largest number actually of any concrete thing is perhaps the
number of atoms in the observable universe (which is uncountable in any case, since no-one knows the entire universe), the
number of stars in the observable universe - which is presumably a number which might be in the future known; or might already be known - is a number; +1 of this second number does not equal infinity.
Anything which is an actual observable thing, which has any relationship to infinity since infinity by definition - is never reached, is not graspable, is not an actual number, (to re-iterate again) since any number stated is therefore having +1 as a larger number (or +0.00000...n...>1).
Numbers refer to actual things, for those things to have number applied to them, to be counted, even if it is a non-known number, for example - atoms in the universe, there is still the +1 factor which therefore denies the infinity to the number.
"without bound" is obviously the actual correct definition, because, if it were possible to imagine any situation where infinity might occur in the universe, it is simply a matter of lack of knowledge of the actual number of the things, which allows the incorrect presumption of infinitesimal. Every thing in the universe has number, without bound suggest the theoretical travelling in any direction from earth, to the boundaries of the universe > [1], and the thing which is beyond - this is the true and only actual referent to infinity, infinity is ipso facto this definition and this does not include the "larger than any number" definition.
23h112e ( talk) 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: 23h112e ( talk) 22:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Infinity&action=history:
23h112e ( talk) 22:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
"numbers refer to actual things"– they might, but they might also refer to fake things, or to no things at all. I'm really at a loss as to your objection here.
@ Deacon Vorbis: @ Trovatore:
try imagine /info/en/?search=%CA%BBOumuamua as it appears in the moving image here, if it were to continue, then it would eventually cease due to lack of energy, or impact, although to then project a course in the direction shown, since the universe cannot have a boundary, it would (in the imagined situation; circumstances) continue forever in the direction "without bound" suggest the theoretical travelling in any direction from earth, to the boundaries of the universe as shown at 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC) 23h112e ( talk) 18:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: hello from here Deacon (not philosophy instead) - "The layman often perceives it as a kind of "number" larger than all numbers..." Princeton University Press, 1991 Eli Maor is a teacher of the history of mathematics who has successfully popularized his subject with the general public
original search page, criteria is "ancient Chinese infinity philosophy" text - p.2 I'd like to know your opinion on the statement by Eli Maor (additionally considering is a teacher of the history of mathematics (doesn't mention professor)) 23h112e ( talk) 16:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
In hindi, we call it anant not ananta. And it is the problem that in English, they include "a" at the end. अनंत is the spelling and we read it as anant.
117.207.26.105 (
talk)
20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think "ananta" is appropriate to use in english as per rules of grammer Navjot1200 ( talk) 16:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it is a concept rather than a Number as considered in Mathematics.... Navjot1200 ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Navjot1200 ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think an article on the Christian theological concept of infinity should be added. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way. In a different sense we sometimes speak, for instance, of infinite time or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite duration or space of such indefinite extension that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or the other. Care should be taken not to confound these two essentially different meanings of the term." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.42 ( talk) 00:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I could argue that most - if not all - aspects of Infinity in the area of Physical Sciences (Physics) are purely mathematical in basis. Infinity is a mathematical concept intended to represent very large numbers that are (at least thus far) immeasurable and cannot be determined to be finite. Pure physics relies on observations to confirm its theories, and yet all measurements contain experimental error and it is not possible to observe the entirety of infinity. Lack of citation on Physics-based applications of infinity only support my position. I invite others to add to this, or update the article accordingly. I'd prefer to remove reference to Physics from discussion of Infinity, but I think others need to contribute. -- 68.188.183.91 ( talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Joel B. Lewis: Per
MOS:FORMULA that you cited, "[...] from non-LaTeX to LaTeX without a clear improvement," I believe there is a clear improvement and keeps consistency in the article (
WP:ARTCON); LaTeX would be preferred over {{
math}} as the symbols are clearer, in my opinion; in addition, "English Wikipedia currently has no consensus about preferred formatting," and "Large scale formatting changes to an article or group of articles are likely to be controversial," therefore I do not know how you can say it is discouraged when it explicitly states it is "likely to be controversial." {{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
12:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
<math>
to maintain consistency per your opinion. There needs to be either or Joel. {{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
18:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
In the "Cardinality of the continuum" section, the diagram displays the first three steps of a fractal to generate a space filling curve.
I think that the first step is wrong: it seems that the horizontal lines shouldn't be right at the top and bottom of the image, otherwise in the next steps the lines would overwrite each other. Instead, the horizontal lines should only be near the top and near the bottom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richierocks ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a terrible phrase in the article. The "concept" has already been explained as a purely philosophical item. What is it supposed to mean that mathematics uses a philosophical concept? At best it explains nothing, except it creates confusion. The truth is that the infinity symbol ∞ is used in mathematics to abbreviate expressions involving limits, typically in summations and integrals. There is no "concept" involved, since you could freely choose to replace the symbol by the more tedious original limit expressions without changing the meaning. The symbol is also used in situations, in topology, elliptic curves, and real and complex analysis, etc., when it is practical or necessary to add an additional element to an existing structure to obtain a larger structure with desired properties. The "extra" element is traditionally named using the symbol ∞. There is no concept whatsoever involved in this choice. The statement "mathematics uses a concept of infinity" is a basic misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.71.194 ( talk) 20:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I have completely rewritten the part of the lead devoted to mathematics. IMO, this is simpler and much clearer for a large audience. I guess that discussing of further improvements would be easier with this version than with the previous ones.
In particular, the axiom of infinity must appear in this article, but I am not sure whether this should be in the lead or in the body. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I have posted this under Infinity in a section I created and titled "uses in african-american theory". It got deleted for some reason and I would really like to reach out and ask for help from the community. I hope I get pointers about why it was deleted and what I can change in order to repost it and keep it there. Thank you so much for all the efforts and a the help.
" the indeterminacy of infinity in Math has been extrapolated as a philosophical and critical signifier in African-American Studies, in order to situate racism and antiblackness as determinate values of Western thought that need the indeterminacy of blackness to be defined and sustainted. Denise Ferraira da Silva, Professor and Director of the Social Justice Institute at the University of British Columbia, theorizes on the value of blackness rendered obsolete. In her article entitled “1 (life) ÷ 0 (blackness) = ∞ − ∞ or ∞ / ∞: On Matter Beyond the Equation of Value”, da Silva uses numbers and equations towards her argument that blackness exists without value and without form. Here, the mathematical use of infinity is conceptualized as a discourse of “refusal to contain blackness in the dialectal form” . Equating blackness with infinity signifiers an impossible/indeterminate value that is not bound by categories and premises of modern thought." Ktf87 ( talk) 18:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It is pobably not Wikipedia's job to correct this. I'm guessing that primary mathematics publications must correct this error first, which I suspect will take some time.
The wikipedia definition confuses the terms unbounded (without any bound) and infinte (beyond counting). Mathematical inconsistency results from a lack of clear definitions of the terms finite, unbounded and infinite. Finite is unbounded which means that it can tend to infinity. In analysis we consider what would happen in the limit (i.e. if we could allow finite to become infinite). In algebra allowing unbounded to be infinite has always been illegal (prior to Cantor which I reject). Unbounded is best thought of as the never-ending journey from finite to infinite, it is not the same as infinite because the journey never gets there (except through analytic reasoning). Paraxoxes vanish once this is properly understood. See [1] and [2]. Epdarnell ( talk) 12:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
References
It is pobably not Wikipedia's job to correct this.Indeed: see our policy WP:NOR. -- JBL ( talk) 13:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Some reference to God (because e.g. Allah or Bible God is only solely considered Almighty) should be added to the article. Only infinity could make almightiness possible (e.g. drawing out energy to the infinite extent in order to have for the entity in question, God in this case, the ability to do whatever it/He wants).
Currently there is about 3.42 million (or 3.3m when archive.is performs search) results on "almightiness of God infinity" Google searh, so proper reliable sources can be found for sure. -- 5.43.99.155 ( talk) 04:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
While "very large infinite sets" can be meaningful, it's also surprising to the naive reader, and is not really explained in situ. For that matter it might be confusing to the expert reader as well, who might assume that this means that the proof uses large cardinals, which (I'm not certain but) I think is not the case.
It seems likely that it probably means it uses the set of all sets of reals, or something smaller than that. That's a "very large infinite set" in some sense, but not in all senses. We should (i) figure out what the real situation is, and then (ii) figure out how to express it in accurate but understandable language. -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for these edits. I have added in the preceding sentence a phrase about the "size" of infinite sets, which may also help to understand "very large". Feel free to remove it, if you think it is too much detailed. Nevertheless, I think important to insist on aspects of mathematical infinity that are paradoxal for non-mathematicians. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
... uses the existence of infinite setsis correct in the literal sense though... it depends on the infinitude of the natural numbers for instance. That’s a pretty meaningless example though as it’s nothing even remotely particular to FLT. — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
IMO, it is important to insist that, in modern mathematics, infinite sets are manipulated as actual objects not as the result of a unbounded process. The concept of actual infinity is so common for mathematicians that many forget that it is paradoxal (or even ignored) for non-mathematicians, including many philosophers. A witness of this ignorance is the body of this article itself: Cantor is not even cited in the history section; Actual infinity is linked only for saying that ancient Greeks did not accepted this concept; etc. It is for starting to correct this misrepresentation of the mathematical concept that I have edited the lead. A deeper edit of the whole article would be needed, but it would need much more work.
It seems from the above discussion that the aim of my edit may be unclear for some editors. For clarifying this, I have added a phrase about actual infinity and its manipulation. I hope that this will make clear why the use of Grothendieck universes (actual infinity) in the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is of a different nature from Euclid's proof of the infinity of the sequence of primes (potential infinity). I am convinced that the lead must make clear that actual infinity is not only commonly used, but is fundamental in modern mathematics. It is possible that my edit could be improved, but in any case, per WP:NPOV, the importance of actual infinity must not be minimized. D.Lazard ( talk) 08:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Unless someone can defend the mention of Zeno in this article, I propose to delete the associated passages.
The lead mentions Zeno as one who speculated about the nature of the infinite. No documented speculations on the matter, however, are attributed to Zeno. His paradoxes are best understood in the context of the Eleatic rejection of the ideas of motion and change, not as positive advances over the philosophy of Parmenides, the founder of the Eleatic school, whose known views were quite unconcerned with the infinite.
Since the 17th century, consideration of the infinite has provided tools to resolve the paradoxes. This explains the recent association of Zeno with infinity, but it does not turn the paradoxes into speculations on the concept.
Similarly, the section § Early Greek attributes "attestable accounts of mathematical infinity" to Zeno. There are no such accounts in the known works of Zeno.
It is noted, correctly, that Aristotle called Zeno the inventor of dialectic. This fact has nothing to do with infinity and does not belong in the article.
Peter Brown ( talk) 16:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Infinity (disambiguation)#Description of Infinity. D.Lazard ( talk) 16:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
There is not really any such thing as infinity. It is therefore misleading to use "Infinity" as the name of an article. A truly encylopediac article would not start out with the qualification "In common usage…". Rather, it would characterize whatever the article title denotes or at least prepare the reader for such a characterization. When, as here, there is nothing denoted—not even something fictional—such a characterization is impossible and therefore has not been provided.
A widely held view, which I do not dispute, is that some things are infinite, the set of real numbers for example. Whether the universe is infinite in extent is certainly a coherent issue. The quality of being infinite, however, is infinitude, not infinity. The article perhaps should be renamed "Infinitude". This would need some reworking of the lead section and, of course, a redirect from Infinity to Infinitude.
To be sure, the word "infinity" is used meaningfully. Here are over one hundred samples. All such uses, though, are shorthand and do not imply the existence of something called "infinity".
When a variable is said to "approach infinity", "tend to infinity", etc., what is usually being described is the state of a system or the value of a dependent variable that is approached as a limit as an independent variable increases without bound. Some writers purport to describe the state of a system when the independent variable is "at infinity"; these really characterize a state that never actually obtains but which is approached as a limit as the variable increases without bound.
Another common use of the term is in the phrase "an infinity of". That phrase is equivalent to "infinitely many" and does not imply the existence of something called an infinity. Grammatically, the expression is plural, despite the singular article; one says "There are an infinity of natural numbers", not, "There is an infinity of natural numbers", at least not usually. Of course, the set of natural numbers does have a cardinality, ℵ₀, but that's another matter.
Peter Brown ( talk) 05:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Britannica's lead may be useful to consider:
Infinity, the concept of something that is unlimited, endless, without bound. The common symbol for infinity, ∞, was invented by the English mathematician John Wallis in 1657. Three main types of infinity may be distinguished: the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical. Mathematical infinities occur, for instance, as the number of points on a continuous line or as the size of the endless sequence of counting numbers: 1, 2, 3,…. Spatial and temporal concepts of infinity occur in physics when one asks if there are infinitely many stars or if the universe will last forever. In a metaphysical discussion of God or the Absolute, there are questions of whether an ultimate entity must be infinite and whether lesser things could be infinite as well. [1]
References
Paul August ☎ 11:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
main}}
pointer). The scope of this article can then be pinned down a bit better (infinite sets; infinity as a bound for limits, sums, integrals, etc; point at infinity in compactification; etc etc etc). Does this make sense? Is it a horrible idea? –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
16:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
In his recent edit, DavidCary is surely correct that the circle, or the ring, is a symbol of infinity (or perhaps eternity). This association definitely merits inclusion in Wikipedia. The choice of the Infinity article is plausible, though other choices might be considered. As Deacon Vorbis says, his contribution is somewhat off-topic for this article, but it is close enough that inclusion merits discussion, at least. It surely doesn't belong in § Arts, games, and cognitive sciences, but perhaps it can be given its own section?
Peter Brown ( talk) 21:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure that we really need the infinity symbol in the first sentence, but if it is to remain, I sort of think PolarisBSH makes a decent point. One advantage for having the symbol there is that it's a convenient spot from which to copy the unicode. If we use <math>, that doesn't work. -- Trovatore ( talk) 23:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
math}}
version was still giving the straight character, just with a different font), but as I said in my edit summary, it's reasonable to present a reader with the various ways they might see it rendered on this page (or even elsewhere on WP). We've got a horrible patchwork of methods for rendering math, and this is just a mild concession to that fact. I've reworded it slightly so it doesn't clutter the opening sentence and to make it clear that it's the same symbol, just rendered differently. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
14:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
math}}
, as ∞, since it tends to look better. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
<math>\infty</math>
symbol everywhere. Do we need to say, explicitly, that ∞ can be copied, at
Infinity symbol if not in the
Infinity article itself? Just a suggestion: how about leaving the text of the
Infinity symbol article alone but noting in the {{infobox}} legend that the symbol can be copied from there?{{math|∞}}
. The template discussion calls {{
math}} "an alternative to using the <math>...</math>
tag pair" so I wasn't distinguishing {{math|∞}}
from <math>\infty</math>
and didn't realize that the former could be copied. I'm mildly unhappy that it differs from nearly every other use in the article, but let's go with it.
Deacon Vorbis, do you want to do the honors, since you've been editing it?
Peter Brown (
talk)
02:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@ D.Lazard: The following sentence in the "Geometry" section is a bit strange:
Until the end of the 19th century, infinity occurred rarely in geometry.
I think I understand what you mean, but it's a bit misleading or just incorrect as currently worded. It's not like people didn't use analytic geometry following Descartes (essentially with real numbers, but at least over the rationals or ) or that they didn't view lines as extending infinitely. — MarkH21 talk 12:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I have boldy expanded the first sentence into a paragraph. Be free to improve it and/or tagging is with {{ citation needed}}. D.Lazard ( talk) 18:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Peter M. Brown:, the reason why I removed those words is because it says "on the right" which is not the case when viewing the page on mobile device. On phones, the picture is shown just below the text, not on the right side as in a computer. I thought it would create a confusion. ☎️ Churot DancePop 16:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Unboundedness. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 25#Unboundedness until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
21:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Nothing useful here.
|
---|
There is much talk about net neutrality and how Wikipedia is the harbinger of it. It is not true. As is apparent in the case of inclusion of an ancient Indian text that indubitably talks about the concept, this idea is being suffocated by some biased editors, most probably of European origin. It is sad because Europe is a great continent and has some really big contributions to mankind. By being thus petty in attempting to suffocate contributions by other civilizations, in my understanding, we are just belittling the great works of our civilization. I posted the following: It is sometimes alleged that the concept of infinity first originated in the Indian civilization as one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE. The mantra is given in Devanagri script below. ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते | पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते || which means: That is perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect. [1]. The debate arises because of translation difficulties between English and other languages. Simply put, the base word 'poorna' means complete or perfect. A question arises: are the words complete or perfect and infinity synonyms. An indirect way to answer the question is to look at the concept of infinity rather than the meaning of the word poorna. Infinity - Infinity = Infinity. The second line of the sholok says exactly that. On the other hand Complete - complete = zero. Another interpretation of the word is full [2] [3]. However, again since full - full = zero, the meaning full also does not satisfy the second line. The only constant that can satisfy the identity quoted in the second line is infinty. The debate however is not conclusive because satisfaction of the identity does not imply that the writer of the sholok was expressing infinity indeed. References
I tried to be as careful to cater to any bruised egos. (Please read my edit). Is there any doubt that such an Upnishad existed, I have cited the Wikipage and that page cites proper publications for the Upanishad. Are each of the Wikipedia pages stand alone entities? If we start providing all the citations, each page would become bulky and unwieldy? Use of Wikipages to distribute citations is a prevalent editing methodology. I also cited from the published book of Honorable second president of India. The section just above "Early Greek" is doing exactly the same thing. I am a researcher and have some publications to my credit. I have no pride in making this addition. I did not do it, how can I have pride? I am doing it because Wikipedia as a share knowledge source should have all relevant information about a topic. There are other attempts to make the same additions, which were similarly rebuffed by the biased editors, without giving specific problems. The edits were just reverted. Anyways, I am looking for suggestions on the following: In its present state what parts of my edits are unacceptable and why? What else need to be added to make the unacceptable parts acceptable? Please provide specific feedback, so that we can come to a consensus regarding this edit. Regards, Wilkn ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
References Again - the same bias without any supported citations. I have provided authentic translation, but you are making blanket statement without any citations. Provide citations that poorna does not mean infinite. Provide citations that my citations are not accurate. You view point has greater value that the published books? Provide citations that it is a minority point of view. Sir - you are an editor, if I may, just an editor. You have no authority whatsoever to challenge published work. Can any constant other than infinity satisfy the identity stated in the sholok? Kindly be specific in your responses to the question asked rather than equivocating. You seem to be practicing, what you are charging me of. The questions again are: In its present state what parts of my edits are unacceptable and why? What else need to be added to make the unacceptable parts acceptable? Can any constant other than infinity satisfy the identity stated in the sholok? Please provide specific feedback, so that we can come to a consensus regarding this edit. Wilkn ( talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
My follow up question is why are the three sources that I cite not considered reliable sources? As per my reading they are indeed reliable sources. I am reproducing exactly verbatim from the quoted sources. I am not putting any of my views over there as alleged. I have included citations that say that the sholok talks about 'infinite' as that it is a universally held understanding, including by western scholars such as Yeat, W.B. Why is the section about Early Greek fine? I was not even able to find the references when I searched for them. Apeiron can mean infinity? And what are the WP:RS sources that attest that Zeno of Elna came up with the concept of infinity. Kindly, calm down your alert systems, we are too small of entities to be able to represent Indian and/or Western contributions. For example, India and some western nations already have a space crafts in Mars. Now if we try to block publishing about it on Wikipedia, I doubt if we can hide it. Trovatore, thank you for sharing the history, things are obviously more in perspective now. Wilkn ( talk) 21:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Deacon, Trovatore! I possibly see you point more clearly now. I added those "weasel words" because I was on the defensive because of blanket reverting of mine and other people's edits without giving any reason. (Please see response of Mr. Connlley above). I thought the editors do not want to add the edits because they are getting intimidated by such an early Indian contribution and their European antecedents rather than the merit of the contribution. I have modified my addition as follows: In the Indian civilization, one of the mantras of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Ishavasya Upanishad popularly known as Shanti Mantra, around 700 BCE talks about a parallel concept of 'perfect.' The mantra 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 perfect. This is perfect. Perfect comes from perfect. Take perfect from perfect, the remainder is perfect." [1]. Here the root word, poorna = perfect. Another interpretation of the word, 'poorna' is full [2] [3]. The identity stated can only be satisfied by the mathematical constant of infinity or infinite because complete - complete or full - full = 0 and not complete or full. Only infinity - infinity = infinity. citation needed. References
What do you think of it now? My question about the problems with Early Greek section still remain unanswered. (As a side note, we need to add the identities of infinity (infinity (+-x/) infinity = infinity to the article and reference indeterminacy here as well. for example infinity/infinity = 0, infinity and 1.) Thanks! Wilkn ( talk) 22:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Trovatore - progress can be made only if both sides are willing. As a native speaker of the language, poorna and infinity are synonyms. The problem here is how to convince the obvious to any native speaker to a group of non-native, possibly prejudiced audience.:-) Please address my latest questions. Thanks! Wilkn ( talk) 23:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Side note on the rejected mediationWilkn's attempt to invoke mediation appears to have been limited to the narrowest possible issue, namely whether a particular word in the Upanishads should be translated as "infinity". In point of fact, it is not difficult to find translations that render it as "infinity". The Yeats one, in particular, does not, and the fact that Wilkn claimed specifically that Yeats did interpret the Upanishads as referring to infinity may — bring back bad memories. But this is not really the point. It is entirely beyond my competence to render an opinion on whether the word is correctly translated as "infinity" in those translations that do so. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that it is. That still doesn't justify the text that Wilkn wants to add. Supposing the text is referring to infinity, it still doesn't seem to say anything substantial about it. (Wilkn appears to think that ∞−∞ = ∞ is a valid mathematical equation, but it is not; in any context I can think of, ∞−∞ is undefined.) If it can be established that the word is correctly translated as "infinity", then I might be persuaded that this is worth a single sentence in the text, as a very early example in which the concept of infinity is attested. Any more substantial mention, especially any claim that the concept "originated" (or even is "alleged to have originated") with the Upanishads, would demand citations speaking to that particular point. -- Trovatore ( talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
References
Nothing next: no one is sympathetic to your attempts and there is clear consensus against every edit you have proposed. You should find some other way to occupy yourself. -- JBL ( talk) 12:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
English translation of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad by Swami Nikhilananda. page 61. Also, please see wikipedia page Shanti Mantrafor more translation references. Let me know if you have any other follow up questions. Wilkn ( talk) 03:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
|
how any of these links are an actual problem to the any reader...
Why it is there is an article titled concept since it is such an ordinary word, if your understanding were true, no-one would need to read the article, since the topic is such an ordinary fact of life 23h112e ( talk) 21:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Why your opinion should supercede my own in any case, while you state policy, although how, since there is the possibility of error on your account, as indicated by ther confusion on your part between ordinary and everyday, and the non-absolute description in policy of behaviours with respect to under and overlinking, a factor to which I refer to due to you so helpfully including mention in your editorial summary. 23h112e ( talk) 21:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC) 23h112e ( talk) 21:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
for example:
any number, the largest number is... (there isn't one) obviously, there is no largest number - unless it is a counted number of actual things, anything obviously.
To re-iterate, the largest number actually of any concrete thing is perhaps the
number of atoms in the observable universe (which is uncountable in any case, since no-one knows the entire universe), the
number of stars in the observable universe - which is presumably a number which might be in the future known; or might already be known - is a number; +1 of this second number does not equal infinity.
Anything which is an actual observable thing, which has any relationship to infinity since infinity by definition - is never reached, is not graspable, is not an actual number, (to re-iterate again) since any number stated is therefore having +1 as a larger number (or +0.00000...n...>1).
Numbers refer to actual things, for those things to have number applied to them, to be counted, even if it is a non-known number, for example - atoms in the universe, there is still the +1 factor which therefore denies the infinity to the number.
"without bound" is obviously the actual correct definition, because, if it were possible to imagine any situation where infinity might occur in the universe, it is simply a matter of lack of knowledge of the actual number of the things, which allows the incorrect presumption of infinitesimal. Every thing in the universe has number, without bound suggest the theoretical travelling in any direction from earth, to the boundaries of the universe > [1], and the thing which is beyond - this is the true and only actual referent to infinity, infinity is ipso facto this definition and this does not include the "larger than any number" definition.
23h112e ( talk) 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: 23h112e ( talk) 22:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Infinity&action=history:
23h112e ( talk) 22:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
"numbers refer to actual things"– they might, but they might also refer to fake things, or to no things at all. I'm really at a loss as to your objection here.
@ Deacon Vorbis: @ Trovatore:
try imagine /info/en/?search=%CA%BBOumuamua as it appears in the moving image here, if it were to continue, then it would eventually cease due to lack of energy, or impact, although to then project a course in the direction shown, since the universe cannot have a boundary, it would (in the imagined situation; circumstances) continue forever in the direction "without bound" suggest the theoretical travelling in any direction from earth, to the boundaries of the universe as shown at 22:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC) 23h112e ( talk) 18:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@ Deacon Vorbis: hello from here Deacon (not philosophy instead) - "The layman often perceives it as a kind of "number" larger than all numbers..." Princeton University Press, 1991 Eli Maor is a teacher of the history of mathematics who has successfully popularized his subject with the general public
original search page, criteria is "ancient Chinese infinity philosophy" text - p.2 I'd like to know your opinion on the statement by Eli Maor (additionally considering is a teacher of the history of mathematics (doesn't mention professor)) 23h112e ( talk) 16:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
In hindi, we call it anant not ananta. And it is the problem that in English, they include "a" at the end. अनंत is the spelling and we read it as anant.
117.207.26.105 (
talk)
20:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I think "ananta" is appropriate to use in english as per rules of grammer Navjot1200 ( talk) 16:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it is a concept rather than a Number as considered in Mathematics.... Navjot1200 ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Navjot1200 ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I think an article on the Christian theological concept of infinity should be added. As the Catholic Encyclopedia states: "When we say that God is infinite, we mean that He is unlimited in every kind of perfection or that every conceivable perfection belongs to Him in the highest conceivable way. In a different sense we sometimes speak, for instance, of infinite time or space, meaning thereby time of such indefinite duration or space of such indefinite extension that we cannot assign any fixed limit to one or the other. Care should be taken not to confound these two essentially different meanings of the term." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.87.42 ( talk) 00:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I could argue that most - if not all - aspects of Infinity in the area of Physical Sciences (Physics) are purely mathematical in basis. Infinity is a mathematical concept intended to represent very large numbers that are (at least thus far) immeasurable and cannot be determined to be finite. Pure physics relies on observations to confirm its theories, and yet all measurements contain experimental error and it is not possible to observe the entirety of infinity. Lack of citation on Physics-based applications of infinity only support my position. I invite others to add to this, or update the article accordingly. I'd prefer to remove reference to Physics from discussion of Infinity, but I think others need to contribute. -- 68.188.183.91 ( talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@
Joel B. Lewis: Per
MOS:FORMULA that you cited, "[...] from non-LaTeX to LaTeX without a clear improvement," I believe there is a clear improvement and keeps consistency in the article (
WP:ARTCON); LaTeX would be preferred over {{
math}} as the symbols are clearer, in my opinion; in addition, "English Wikipedia currently has no consensus about preferred formatting," and "Large scale formatting changes to an article or group of articles are likely to be controversial," therefore I do not know how you can say it is discouraged when it explicitly states it is "likely to be controversial." {{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
12:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
<math>
to maintain consistency per your opinion. There needs to be either or Joel. {{u|
waddie96}} {
talk}
18:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
In the "Cardinality of the continuum" section, the diagram displays the first three steps of a fractal to generate a space filling curve.
I think that the first step is wrong: it seems that the horizontal lines shouldn't be right at the top and bottom of the image, otherwise in the next steps the lines would overwrite each other. Instead, the horizontal lines should only be near the top and near the bottom.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richierocks ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a terrible phrase in the article. The "concept" has already been explained as a purely philosophical item. What is it supposed to mean that mathematics uses a philosophical concept? At best it explains nothing, except it creates confusion. The truth is that the infinity symbol ∞ is used in mathematics to abbreviate expressions involving limits, typically in summations and integrals. There is no "concept" involved, since you could freely choose to replace the symbol by the more tedious original limit expressions without changing the meaning. The symbol is also used in situations, in topology, elliptic curves, and real and complex analysis, etc., when it is practical or necessary to add an additional element to an existing structure to obtain a larger structure with desired properties. The "extra" element is traditionally named using the symbol ∞. There is no concept whatsoever involved in this choice. The statement "mathematics uses a concept of infinity" is a basic misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.71.194 ( talk) 20:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I have completely rewritten the part of the lead devoted to mathematics. IMO, this is simpler and much clearer for a large audience. I guess that discussing of further improvements would be easier with this version than with the previous ones.
In particular, the axiom of infinity must appear in this article, but I am not sure whether this should be in the lead or in the body. D.Lazard ( talk) 15:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I have posted this under Infinity in a section I created and titled "uses in african-american theory". It got deleted for some reason and I would really like to reach out and ask for help from the community. I hope I get pointers about why it was deleted and what I can change in order to repost it and keep it there. Thank you so much for all the efforts and a the help.
" the indeterminacy of infinity in Math has been extrapolated as a philosophical and critical signifier in African-American Studies, in order to situate racism and antiblackness as determinate values of Western thought that need the indeterminacy of blackness to be defined and sustainted. Denise Ferraira da Silva, Professor and Director of the Social Justice Institute at the University of British Columbia, theorizes on the value of blackness rendered obsolete. In her article entitled “1 (life) ÷ 0 (blackness) = ∞ − ∞ or ∞ / ∞: On Matter Beyond the Equation of Value”, da Silva uses numbers and equations towards her argument that blackness exists without value and without form. Here, the mathematical use of infinity is conceptualized as a discourse of “refusal to contain blackness in the dialectal form” . Equating blackness with infinity signifiers an impossible/indeterminate value that is not bound by categories and premises of modern thought." Ktf87 ( talk) 18:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It is pobably not Wikipedia's job to correct this. I'm guessing that primary mathematics publications must correct this error first, which I suspect will take some time.
The wikipedia definition confuses the terms unbounded (without any bound) and infinte (beyond counting). Mathematical inconsistency results from a lack of clear definitions of the terms finite, unbounded and infinite. Finite is unbounded which means that it can tend to infinity. In analysis we consider what would happen in the limit (i.e. if we could allow finite to become infinite). In algebra allowing unbounded to be infinite has always been illegal (prior to Cantor which I reject). Unbounded is best thought of as the never-ending journey from finite to infinite, it is not the same as infinite because the journey never gets there (except through analytic reasoning). Paraxoxes vanish once this is properly understood. See [1] and [2]. Epdarnell ( talk) 12:56, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
References
It is pobably not Wikipedia's job to correct this.Indeed: see our policy WP:NOR. -- JBL ( talk) 13:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Some reference to God (because e.g. Allah or Bible God is only solely considered Almighty) should be added to the article. Only infinity could make almightiness possible (e.g. drawing out energy to the infinite extent in order to have for the entity in question, God in this case, the ability to do whatever it/He wants).
Currently there is about 3.42 million (or 3.3m when archive.is performs search) results on "almightiness of God infinity" Google searh, so proper reliable sources can be found for sure. -- 5.43.99.155 ( talk) 04:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
While "very large infinite sets" can be meaningful, it's also surprising to the naive reader, and is not really explained in situ. For that matter it might be confusing to the expert reader as well, who might assume that this means that the proof uses large cardinals, which (I'm not certain but) I think is not the case.
It seems likely that it probably means it uses the set of all sets of reals, or something smaller than that. That's a "very large infinite set" in some sense, but not in all senses. We should (i) figure out what the real situation is, and then (ii) figure out how to express it in accurate but understandable language. -- Trovatore ( talk) 02:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for these edits. I have added in the preceding sentence a phrase about the "size" of infinite sets, which may also help to understand "very large". Feel free to remove it, if you think it is too much detailed. Nevertheless, I think important to insist on aspects of mathematical infinity that are paradoxal for non-mathematicians. D.Lazard ( talk) 09:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
... uses the existence of infinite setsis correct in the literal sense though... it depends on the infinitude of the natural numbers for instance. That’s a pretty meaningless example though as it’s nothing even remotely particular to FLT. — MarkH21 ( talk) 19:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
IMO, it is important to insist that, in modern mathematics, infinite sets are manipulated as actual objects not as the result of a unbounded process. The concept of actual infinity is so common for mathematicians that many forget that it is paradoxal (or even ignored) for non-mathematicians, including many philosophers. A witness of this ignorance is the body of this article itself: Cantor is not even cited in the history section; Actual infinity is linked only for saying that ancient Greeks did not accepted this concept; etc. It is for starting to correct this misrepresentation of the mathematical concept that I have edited the lead. A deeper edit of the whole article would be needed, but it would need much more work.
It seems from the above discussion that the aim of my edit may be unclear for some editors. For clarifying this, I have added a phrase about actual infinity and its manipulation. I hope that this will make clear why the use of Grothendieck universes (actual infinity) in the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is of a different nature from Euclid's proof of the infinity of the sequence of primes (potential infinity). I am convinced that the lead must make clear that actual infinity is not only commonly used, but is fundamental in modern mathematics. It is possible that my edit could be improved, but in any case, per WP:NPOV, the importance of actual infinity must not be minimized. D.Lazard ( talk) 08:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Unless someone can defend the mention of Zeno in this article, I propose to delete the associated passages.
The lead mentions Zeno as one who speculated about the nature of the infinite. No documented speculations on the matter, however, are attributed to Zeno. His paradoxes are best understood in the context of the Eleatic rejection of the ideas of motion and change, not as positive advances over the philosophy of Parmenides, the founder of the Eleatic school, whose known views were quite unconcerned with the infinite.
Since the 17th century, consideration of the infinite has provided tools to resolve the paradoxes. This explains the recent association of Zeno with infinity, but it does not turn the paradoxes into speculations on the concept.
Similarly, the section § Early Greek attributes "attestable accounts of mathematical infinity" to Zeno. There are no such accounts in the known works of Zeno.
It is noted, correctly, that Aristotle called Zeno the inventor of dialectic. This fact has nothing to do with infinity and does not belong in the article.
Peter Brown ( talk) 16:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:Infinity (disambiguation)#Description of Infinity. D.Lazard ( talk) 16:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
There is not really any such thing as infinity. It is therefore misleading to use "Infinity" as the name of an article. A truly encylopediac article would not start out with the qualification "In common usage…". Rather, it would characterize whatever the article title denotes or at least prepare the reader for such a characterization. When, as here, there is nothing denoted—not even something fictional—such a characterization is impossible and therefore has not been provided.
A widely held view, which I do not dispute, is that some things are infinite, the set of real numbers for example. Whether the universe is infinite in extent is certainly a coherent issue. The quality of being infinite, however, is infinitude, not infinity. The article perhaps should be renamed "Infinitude". This would need some reworking of the lead section and, of course, a redirect from Infinity to Infinitude.
To be sure, the word "infinity" is used meaningfully. Here are over one hundred samples. All such uses, though, are shorthand and do not imply the existence of something called "infinity".
When a variable is said to "approach infinity", "tend to infinity", etc., what is usually being described is the state of a system or the value of a dependent variable that is approached as a limit as an independent variable increases without bound. Some writers purport to describe the state of a system when the independent variable is "at infinity"; these really characterize a state that never actually obtains but which is approached as a limit as the variable increases without bound.
Another common use of the term is in the phrase "an infinity of". That phrase is equivalent to "infinitely many" and does not imply the existence of something called an infinity. Grammatically, the expression is plural, despite the singular article; one says "There are an infinity of natural numbers", not, "There is an infinity of natural numbers", at least not usually. Of course, the set of natural numbers does have a cardinality, ℵ₀, but that's another matter.
Peter Brown ( talk) 05:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Britannica's lead may be useful to consider:
Infinity, the concept of something that is unlimited, endless, without bound. The common symbol for infinity, ∞, was invented by the English mathematician John Wallis in 1657. Three main types of infinity may be distinguished: the mathematical, the physical, and the metaphysical. Mathematical infinities occur, for instance, as the number of points on a continuous line or as the size of the endless sequence of counting numbers: 1, 2, 3,…. Spatial and temporal concepts of infinity occur in physics when one asks if there are infinitely many stars or if the universe will last forever. In a metaphysical discussion of God or the Absolute, there are questions of whether an ultimate entity must be infinite and whether lesser things could be infinite as well. [1]
References
Paul August ☎ 11:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
main}}
pointer). The scope of this article can then be pinned down a bit better (infinite sets; infinity as a bound for limits, sums, integrals, etc; point at infinity in compactification; etc etc etc). Does this make sense? Is it a horrible idea? –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
16:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
In his recent edit, DavidCary is surely correct that the circle, or the ring, is a symbol of infinity (or perhaps eternity). This association definitely merits inclusion in Wikipedia. The choice of the Infinity article is plausible, though other choices might be considered. As Deacon Vorbis says, his contribution is somewhat off-topic for this article, but it is close enough that inclusion merits discussion, at least. It surely doesn't belong in § Arts, games, and cognitive sciences, but perhaps it can be given its own section?
Peter Brown ( talk) 21:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure that we really need the infinity symbol in the first sentence, but if it is to remain, I sort of think PolarisBSH makes a decent point. One advantage for having the symbol there is that it's a convenient spot from which to copy the unicode. If we use <math>, that doesn't work. -- Trovatore ( talk) 23:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
math}}
version was still giving the straight character, just with a different font), but as I said in my edit summary, it's reasonable to present a reader with the various ways they might see it rendered on this page (or even elsewhere on WP). We've got a horrible patchwork of methods for rendering math, and this is just a mild concession to that fact. I've reworded it slightly so it doesn't clutter the opening sentence and to make it clear that it's the same symbol, just rendered differently. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
14:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
math}}
, as ∞, since it tends to look better. –
Deacon Vorbis (
carbon •
videos)
16:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
<math>\infty</math>
symbol everywhere. Do we need to say, explicitly, that ∞ can be copied, at
Infinity symbol if not in the
Infinity article itself? Just a suggestion: how about leaving the text of the
Infinity symbol article alone but noting in the {{infobox}} legend that the symbol can be copied from there?{{math|∞}}
. The template discussion calls {{
math}} "an alternative to using the <math>...</math>
tag pair" so I wasn't distinguishing {{math|∞}}
from <math>\infty</math>
and didn't realize that the former could be copied. I'm mildly unhappy that it differs from nearly every other use in the article, but let's go with it.
Deacon Vorbis, do you want to do the honors, since you've been editing it?
Peter Brown (
talk)
02:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
@ D.Lazard: The following sentence in the "Geometry" section is a bit strange:
Until the end of the 19th century, infinity occurred rarely in geometry.
I think I understand what you mean, but it's a bit misleading or just incorrect as currently worded. It's not like people didn't use analytic geometry following Descartes (essentially with real numbers, but at least over the rationals or ) or that they didn't view lines as extending infinitely. — MarkH21 talk 12:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I have boldy expanded the first sentence into a paragraph. Be free to improve it and/or tagging is with {{ citation needed}}. D.Lazard ( talk) 18:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Peter M. Brown:, the reason why I removed those words is because it says "on the right" which is not the case when viewing the page on mobile device. On phones, the picture is shown just below the text, not on the right side as in a computer. I thought it would create a confusion. ☎️ Churot DancePop 16:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Unboundedness. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 25#Unboundedness until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
21:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)