Math for blonds

Printer-friendly version

Did you know, some infinities are larger than others?

Yeah, I had much the same reaction. As in dude, what are you smoking, and where can I get some?

It’s true though. The proof goes something like this:

Integers are whole numbers which can be positive, negative or zero.

The smallest positive integer is one and each subsequent integer can be found by adding one to the last.

If there is a finite number of integers, then there has to be a finite number that is the largest integer. We can call this n.

However n plus one must also be a valid integer, so for every conceivable integer, there will always be at least one other larger integer.

As such, there must be an infinite number of positive integers.

By similar reasoning, there must also be an infinite number of negative integers.

And an infinite number of integers as a whole.

However the infinite set of integers includes both positive and negative numbers whereas the infinite set of positive integers does not.

So the former infinity must be larger than the latter one.

By the same reasoning, there must be an infinite number of universes where I'm:

Female.

Blond.

Always have been.

So that's, like, my infinity, like where I totes belong. And, yeah, like maybe they're all universes where there are like no others where I'm anything else.

Anyway, who cares about math? The sun is shining and it’s, like, perfect weather for wearing my new summer dress.

Besides, Mandy just called. A bunch of us girls are gonna meet down at the mall, maybe do some shopping, maybe go see a chick flick.

You know, maybe even meet up with some cute guy.

Squee!

Yeah. What were we, like, talking about?

Never mind. Laters.

up
101 users have voted.
If you liked this post, you can leave a comment and/or a kudos! Click the "Thumbs Up!" button above to leave a Kudos

Comments

But only for, like...

trans people :) and easier for blonds.

Maeryn Lamonte, the girl inside

Definitely Blonde

joannebarbarella's picture

An infinite number of malls, an infinite number of chick flicks and an infinite number of cute guys. What's not to like?

Oh, it gets worse ... much much worse ...

Georg Cantor did a lot of the first work on infinities (plural). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor.

Don't panic. Much of the Cantor's stuff is beyond me, and I've been a computer and an amateur math geek for decades ...

For the first part of my blather, you just need know that Cantor's name for the smallest infinity (1, 2, 3, ... and so on) is the Hebrew letter 'aleph', sub-scripted with a zero, and pronounced "Aleph-Null".

So now we sing:

"Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall,
Take one down, pass it around,
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall ..."

And so on.

(Infinity minus one is infinity. That's how infinity works.)

===

Oh, it gets worse ... much much worse ...

"So much" for the integers ...

Then there are the "decimal numbers" (or floating point, or 'reals'). The kinds of numbers we get when give a store clerk a $10 bill, and the change includes fractional dollars: $3.71, or when we divide three into one, and get 0.3333333 ... "3"s forever.

Cantor proved that the 'reals' ( $5.71, 1 / 3rd) are infinitely more numerous than the integers. In fact, the "number" of real numbers is a 'second order' of infinity. One of Cantor's proofs of this is known as the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

Just look at the first picture and think "infinite street map".

Would all you who are still awake now please join me in song:

"Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall,
Take one down, pass it around.
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall.

"One street south, one bar east:

"Aleph null bottles of beer on the wall,
Take one down, pass it around.
Aleph-null bottles of beer on the wall."

... and so on. and on. and on ...

Yeah, but...

Don't you think I'd look really great in that leather mini dress?

I like it here.

Maeryn Lamonte, the girl inside

I mean...

Yes the math goes deeper and goes seriously beyond my capacity, especially since, like, blond now. But you know, means to an end.

Maeryn Lamonte, the girl inside

As an accountant ...

Lily Rasputin's picture

I like this math. I think I'm going to work on solving it as well. This was very cute and I enjoyed it!

~ Lily

"All that we see or seem, Is but a dream within a dream." Edgar Allen Poe

I think it's...

maybe more mathemagic than proper maths, but I'd love it if you could change your reality by working out the logic of obscure truths.

Maeryn Lamonte, the girl inside

Math

Erisian's picture

My inner math geek requires commentary or I'll end up thinking about it all night...

So technically there exists a bijection between integers and the positive integers: Proof

What this means is that you can map the set of all integers onto the set of all positive integers and vice-versa. This is true because infinity is, well, infinite. Therefore the cardinality of the two sets is equal: Cardinality, and so they are considered equal in size.

What you cannot do is map the set of all integers onto the set of all real numbers (all rational and irrational numbers), so those are NOT bijective and have different cardinalities. They are infinities of different size.

Though our protagonist at this point would likely be too distracted by chirping cardinals and the need to take their pictures for instagram to worry about the math. :)

Okay, I now can sleep tonight. Yay! <3

Oooh

Look at the pretty red birds.

Hang on a minute. Are you saying that the set of positive integers contains all integers including negative ones because both the set of positive integers and the set of all integers are both infinite? Because, hey, that's like blonder than blond. Isn't that like saying the set of even integers contains all the odd ones too because the set of even integers is infinite in the same way as the set of all integers.

I get that there's different infinities for reals and integers because there's an infinite number of possibilities between any two consecutive numbers in reals, so infinity squared, but how come that doesn't work for infinite subsets of integers? or am I missing something?

They really are pretty, those birds.

Maeryn Lamonte, the girl inside

Sets

Erisian's picture

It's not that the set of positive integers or the set of all integers -contain- anything other than their elements. It's that you can map each positive integer to all the integers, and vice versa. Every element taken from the first set can be mapped to a unique element in the second set, and also each element in the second set can be mapped to a unique element in the first set (Bi-directional).

Updated the proof...which I had posted the wrong link that mapped to even numbers, though that demonstrated the concept.

Here's the idea:

" Solution 1:

First, I will provide a description through a story, and then we will move on to the proof. This scenario is related to the Hilbert Grand Hotel Paradox. Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, each numbered 0,1,..., All the rooms in the hotel are already occupied. At midnight, a new group of people arrives, consisting of an infinite number of individuals numbered -1, -2,... How can you accommodate them in the hotel, considering that only one person can stay in each room?

One possible approach is to leave the person in the 0th room and the 1st room unchanged. Then, ask all the current occupants to come out and move all other individuals two rooms ahead from where the last person went. This means that the member in the second room will move to the 3rd room, the 3rd room will move to the 5th room, and so on, resulting in the even-numbered rooms (starting from 2) becoming vacant. Subsequently, the person with the negative number -n can be placed in the 2n-th room. Hence, the mapping is as follows: 0 -> 0, n -> 2n-1 for n>0, and -n -> 2n where n>0. This establishes a bijection between Z (Integers) and N (Naturals). Finally, the occupants can be shifted one place to the right to obtain the desired arrangement."

So if you think of all the set 0..n, with n going to infinity, you can define a function on n which would then also define all the integers (slightly different than the above hotel description's function using -n...n, but hopefully more easily understood):

n = 0: f(0) = 0
if n is odd (1, 3, 5, ....): f(n) = - (n+1) / 2 which gives the sequence f(1) = -1, f(3) = -2, f(5) = -3, and so on forever
if n is even (2, 4, 6, ...): f(n) = n / 2 which gives the sequence f(2) = 1, f(4) = 2, f(6) = 3, again this doesn't stop either

So what numbers comprise the set of f(n) as n goes from 0 to infinity? Well, the set of values from f(n) contains all the integers!

So the size of the cardinality is the same, every natural number can be paired with an integer. And the reverse is possible. It works because the sets are not finite but infinite...they just keep going and going, and so therefore does the mappings. Infinities are trippy this way!!

Hopefully this helps, and now I need to go count birds (finitely!!) until passed out! <3

1...2...3...zzzz

Cantor's Paradise

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/why-some-infinities-are-larg...

It's actually not that difficult to understand. Once you understand how infinities work, you'll understand that infinities come in different sizes, yet they're all infinities. Many of them can be cross-mapped. Those are 'countable' infinities. Uncountable infinities can't be cross-mapped.

This is one of the theoretical concepts behind potential 'faster than light' travel. If you have an infinite number of universes, you'll have a universe that while infinite in size, it's infinitesimally small. If you could move into that universe, then 'walk' a bit, and move back into our universe, you'd end up in the same place _here_ as you were _there_, but because of the variable size, you'd be much further along _here_ than _there_.


I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.

Alas, that still has al the

Brooke Erickson's picture

Alas, that still has al the problems of FTL being equivalent to time travel that most proposals for FTL have.

The problem is that the interval (the 4d version of distance) between the starting point and the ending point will be such that from at least one frame of reference (likely an infinite number of them) you'll arrive before you left. Which means there are ways to send messages (or even ships) backwards in time by *your* frame of reference.

What matters is that you take less time to get from point A to point B than it would take light to cross the distance in "normal" space. It *doesn't* matter how you did it, just that you did (it's a consequence of the geometry of space-time).

There's a saying...

You can have any two out of the three:
1. FTL
2. strict global causality (ie in *all* frames of reference, effects come *after* causes, not before)
3. relativity.

Causality is kinda important. :-)

Relativity is a well confirmed theory. That is, any violations of in can't happen under any conditions we've already tested or observed.

Now, you can get FTL/time travel if you are willing to give up strict *global* causality and settle for strict *local* causality. That's "effects always have causes, and usually causes precede effects.

This avoids paradoxes and other not good things that would happen without causality.

There are all sorts of fun consequence of local causality without global causality. They are as mind-breaking as some quantum stuff (and when you add the quantum stuff to the local causality stuff you get situations where you don't have choices about some things.

Like if you saw the time traveller appear, you *cannot* avoid him being sent at some point in the future.

Dr. Robert Forward's SF novel Timemaster has a lot of this stuff (FTL and some time travel) and has appendices that get into the math and stuff.

Poul Anderson's novel There Will Be Time is all about
time travel and has some nice examples of being unable to changes things as well as ways you can "change" things.

As Niven once put it, if you try to go back and shoot your grandfather, the gun *will* jam. Or, you'll find out that he wasn't actually your grandfather. :-)

Brooke brooke at shadowgard dot com
http://brooke.shadowgard.com/
Girls will be boys, and boys will be girls
It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world
"Lola", the Kinks

You're misunderstanding the

You're misunderstanding the structure. Translating is not the same as speed. You'll never break the FTL barrier. What you're doing is moving _somewhere smaller_. You are not travelling _in our local space time structure_. You leave, you move, you come back. No time travel at all, other than possibly forward. It might only be picoseconds, but time is spent.


I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.

Well I'm still awake but...

Yes, this feels like a record. And I had to chime in just to say that even though I earn my living as a mechanical engineer I understood only a little of what this was all about. Except for Maeryn's original concept that there could be a universe with a me that looks like the me in my mind's eye. That is the part I got and take comfort in. Thanks for the post Maeryn.

>>> Kay

The thing is infinities

Wendy Jean's picture

Are almost in the irrational number in that they never end. Don't mind the smoke that is just my brain overheating. Now see what you have done!

Oh my word!

Wow! What a set of responses. The "Math Bug" that bit me seventy years ago requires me to respond.

But first, thanks for like the story ya know? Maybe somewhere there is a blue eyed blonde that's me but, I believe I would rather be a brunette with hazel eyes.

My look at infinities after I tripped over Georg Cantor was the following. There are Orders of Infinities and all are infinite. Some infinities just get there faster than others. All counting numbers make it faster than all real numbers.

The movie "Men in Black' has the retrieval of a "Pocket Universe" as part of the plot. Then the junior partner asks a question about what if we are also a "Pocket Universe". You'll have to watch to find the answer. It's not exact, but it gives the flavor.

Thanks again Maeryn.

RK

I've never understood or

KateElizabethSuhr13's picture

I've never understood or believed the logic behind multiple infinites being larger or whatever. Like what happens if 2 infinitely filled busses to go an infinite hotel. Nothing different than 1 infinite bus because either way the hotel has infinite rooms. Infinity technically is just a concept that numbers can increase or decrease as much as you want but doesn't mean multiple of them.

As a kid you might reply infinity plus 1 or say infinity plus infinity or even be clever and say infinity times infinity but at the end of the day, all 3 of those are exactly the same.

Grins

I actually did follow that... squee ... You are sucha trip girl ;-) ! I get more laffs reading your stuff than anyone else, ever .. on that high note and with a grin, methinks ah'll just go mow the yahd afore it rains ...