▲ 287 ▼ EDIT: I THINK I STAND CORRECTED (lemmy.zip) submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.world 218 comments fedilink hide all child comments I considered deleting the post, but this seems more cowardly than just admitting I was wrong. But TIL something!
[–] foyrkopp@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago (5 children) Neither is bigger. Even "∞ x ∞" is not bigger than "∞". Classical mathematics sort of break down in the realm of infinity. permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) It was probably mentioned in other comments, but some infinities are "larger" than others. But yes, the product of the two with the same cardinal number will have the same permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Yes, uncountably infinite sets are larger than countably infinite sets. But these are both a countably infinite number of bills. They're the same infinity. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bender_on_Fire@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think quite some people heard of the concept of different kinds of infinity, but don't know much about how these are defined. That's why this meme should be inverted, as thinking the infinities described here are the same size is the intuitive answer when you either know nothing or quite something about the definition whereas knowing just a little bit can easily lead you to the wrong answer. As the described in the wikipedia article in the top level comment, the thing that matters is whether you can construct a mapping (or more precisely, a bijection) from one set to the other. If so, the sets/infinities are of the same "size". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago Yeah, inverting it is a good idea, truly permalink fedilink source parent [+] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Button777777@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) What about lemons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TinklesMcPoo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mathematically speaking, they should be converted to lemonade. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Screw that! I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down! permalink fedilink source parent [–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Depends on if there's any lemon stealing whores around. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago You're the guy in the middle by the way. permalink fedilink source parent [–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago This problem doesn't involve cardinal numbers. permalink fedilink source parent [–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So it’s basically just a form of NaN? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's (literally) +Inf permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I didn’t know there was a special case for that. Neat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 12 points 2 years ago (2 children) It was probably mentioned in other comments, but some infinities are "larger" than others. But yes, the product of the two with the same cardinal number will have the same permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Yes, uncountably infinite sets are larger than countably infinite sets. But these are both a countably infinite number of bills. They're the same infinity. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Bender_on_Fire@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think quite some people heard of the concept of different kinds of infinity, but don't know much about how these are defined. That's why this meme should be inverted, as thinking the infinities described here are the same size is the intuitive answer when you either know nothing or quite something about the definition whereas knowing just a little bit can easily lead you to the wrong answer. As the described in the wikipedia article in the top level comment, the thing that matters is whether you can construct a mapping (or more precisely, a bijection) from one set to the other. If so, the sets/infinities are of the same "size". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago Yeah, inverting it is a good idea, truly permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago Yes, uncountably infinite sets are larger than countably infinite sets. But these are both a countably infinite number of bills. They're the same infinity. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bender_on_Fire@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think quite some people heard of the concept of different kinds of infinity, but don't know much about how these are defined. That's why this meme should be inverted, as thinking the infinities described here are the same size is the intuitive answer when you either know nothing or quite something about the definition whereas knowing just a little bit can easily lead you to the wrong answer. As the described in the wikipedia article in the top level comment, the thing that matters is whether you can construct a mapping (or more precisely, a bijection) from one set to the other. If so, the sets/infinities are of the same "size". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago Yeah, inverting it is a good idea, truly permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago Yeah, inverting it is a good idea, truly permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Iceblade02@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Button777777@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) What about lemons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TinklesMcPoo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mathematically speaking, they should be converted to lemonade. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Screw that! I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down! permalink fedilink source parent [–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Depends on if there's any lemon stealing whores around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Button777777@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (2 children) What about lemons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] TinklesMcPoo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mathematically speaking, they should be converted to lemonade. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Screw that! I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down! permalink fedilink source parent [–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Depends on if there's any lemon stealing whores around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TinklesMcPoo@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Mathematically speaking, they should be converted to lemonade. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Screw that! I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Screw that! I'm the man who's gonna burn your house down! With the lemons! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that burns your house down! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BreadOven@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Depends on if there's any lemon stealing whores around. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ook_the_librarian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago You're the guy in the middle by the way. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CompassRed@discuss.tchncs.de 1 point 2 years ago This problem doesn't involve cardinal numbers. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) So it’s basically just a form of NaN? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's (literally) +Inf permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I didn’t know there was a special case for that. Neat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child) It's (literally) +Inf permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I didn’t know there was a special case for that. Neat. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] qaz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago I didn’t know there was a special case for that. Neat. permalink fedilink source parent