# Thread: Nothing, infinity, and everything inbetween

1. The closest thing we have to "nothingness" are supervoids in space - regions containing about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter. Some of these supervoids are sufficiently massive as to be billions of light years in diameter.

In fact, one of the largest known supervoids could be an indication of an alternate universe.

2. Originally Posted by Feops
I thought math used limits to cover values impossibly close to 0 or infinity (as 1/x).
Yes, limits are used to describe the behavior of numbers as they approach undefined values.

3. Originally Posted by teslashock
Yes, limits are used to describe the behavior of numbers as they approach undefined values.
Correct, although it should be noted that undefined doesn't necessarily equal the terms so far used in-thread, like "infinity" and so forth. Probably the most common example is x divided by zero.

More of a correction to Feops, but an important distinction.

4. Originally Posted by Night
Correct, although it should be noted that undefined doesn't necessarily equal the terms so far used in-thread, like "infinity" and so forth. Probably the most common example is x divided by zero.
Yeah, agreed. The OP is using some pretty sketch math.

5. Originally Posted by teslashock
Why are you referring to 0 as negative infinite? This seems to be the false premise that is making the rest of your assertions false. Rethink it, bruthah.

Really? Which ones? Last I checked, 0/1 = 0.

The limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is indeed infinite. This simply means that on the cartesian plot of f(x) = 1/x, f(x) = ?. In other words, the closer x gets to 0, the larger f(x) gets. This makes sense, as division by an increasingly large number will yield an increasingly smaller number. If you look at the plot of f(x) = 1/x, however, you will see that x asymptotically approaches 0 (but never reaches it), meaning that 1/0 is undefined because the plot does not exist at that point.

You did the resorting of your little equation there correctly, but 0/1 != ?, so you've basically just proven something by assuming a false premise. Funny how that works, huh?

To be clearer: 0*? != 1. There is some dispute among mathematicians as to what the product of 0*? is, but 1 is hardly in that dispute. To me (and many mathematicians), it makes the most sense for 0*? to be 0, as 0/? = 0, so rearranging the equation gives 0*? = 0. Also, it makes sense conceptually to me because if you take something, and multiply it by nothing, this by definition means that you have nothing of that something.

However, 0*? is seen as a different phrase by others.

Not to burst your bubble (or infinitely expanding universe balloon), but you didn't really explain anything here. You just rambled on with a bunch of pseudo-math, defining fallacies to be true, and then using your false premises to categorize a whole false system. Nice try, but learn some math and then rethink your plan of action when tackling the great question of how our universe came to be.
i think its fairly obviouse that i made a mistake on my math, but the ideas are still very much alive. i meant 1/0 = infinity

and sometimes you have to use a false premises to prove something right, if something is beyond perception... this is all just ideas anyways

6. I think what he means is 0=infinity, there is no difference between the two

7. Originally Posted by cloud
I think what he means is 0=infinity, there is no difference between the two
yes i was hoping that was clear... but i guess people will have already structured concepts of what they think they are, so making them change their point of view to my way of thinking might be difficult...

the concept of 0 is infinit. just a negative direction

infinite existance(?), and infinite nonexistance (0)... hense positive (?) and negative (0) infinities

8. Originally Posted by Night
Correct, although it should be noted that undefined doesn't necessarily equal the terms so far used in-thread, like "infinity" and so forth. Probably the most common example is x divided by zero.

More of a correction to Feops, but an important distinction.
Alright. But infinity would be an undefined value under normal circumstances, yes? It's been a long time since I've had to math more advanced than a financial calculator.

I don't really buy into the original notion of zero being undefined. Zero is just zero. It's a useful descriptive tool.

Zero times infinity is an interesting idea. By default anything times zero should equal zero, but infinity isn't really a 'thing' so much as a mathematical construct. Probably some interesting proofs floating about..

9. Originally Posted by Munchies
yes i was hoping that was clear... but i guess people will have already structured concepts of what they think they are, so making them change their point of view to my way of thinking might be difficult...

the concept of 0 is infinit. just a negative direction

infinite existance(?), and infinite nonexistance (0)... hense positive (?) and negative (0) infinities
If you're outlining a whole new definition of negative infinity, then go for it. But negative infinity does not mean infinitely small. It just means an infinitely "large" negative number (ie, its absolute/scalar value is infinitely large).

If you are going to outline a whole new definition of negative infinity, then you can't use the formerly accepted mathematical principles that define infinity and how infinity behaves in mathematical statements to validate your theory. If you want to outline a theory based on this new infinity, then I'd suggest sticking more with the conceptual aspects, rather than using math to back up your statements, as none of your statements are proven true for your new definition.

The concept of 0, when applied to matter, is abstract, as the existence of "nothing" is, for all intents and purposes, impossible (note that it is not so abstract when we are talking about quantities of one specific entity, ie, take a container holding one molecule of water, remove [subtract] one molecule of water from the container, and we really do have zero molecules of water remaining [but I digress]).Thus, like the graph of f(x) = 1/x, we can't really reach nothing; we just get within an infinitely small distance from nothing (ie, an infinitely small amount). The fact that you get an infinitely small distance away from zero by subtracting an infinite number of times does not equate to negative infinite (by standard definitions of infinite), as you are subtracting increasingly smaller quantities from the increasingly smaller differences from the previous subtractions.

If you look at the graph of f(x) = 1/x, you'll see that as x approaches zero from the negative (left) side, you have to add positive integers ("an infinite number of times") to get closer to the zero asymptote. Does this mean that zero is also positive infinite? By the logic in your theory (if I'm understanding your strange sense of math/logic correctly), it would, but how can negative infinite and positive infinite both be 0? That just makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Munchies
i think its fairly obviouse that i made a mistake on my math, but the ideas are still very much alive. i meant 1/0 = infinity

and sometimes you have to use a false premises to prove something right, if something is beyond perception... this is all just ideas anyways
And by the way, no, your "obvious mistake" was not obvious to me. Your whole post was pretty mathematically jumbled. You said 0/1 = infinity several times, and then you also said 1/0 = infinity several times, so I didn't know which assertion you were actually going with.

And I'd steer clear of using false premises to prove something true. That method is pretty much doomed for failure.

10. I would also try to limit the use of the word "negative". Technically anything below zero should mean it never existed. Am I wrong? If I am, I apologize.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO