Infinity #1

One principle of infinity that many civilization would have encountered in a math class  is the infinity of borders. With boundaries, we have the right to try to understand also 2∞ as follows:

*

The infinity symbol is used twice here: initially time to reexisting “as x grows”, and a 2nd to time to represent “2x eventually permanently exceeds any type of particular bound”.

You are watching: Infinity to the power of infinity

If we use the notation a little bit loosely, we might “simplify” the limit above as follows:

*

This would imply that the answer to the question in the title is “No”, however as will be noticeable shortly, utilizing infinity notation loosely is not a good idea.

Infinity #2

In addition to boundaries, tbelow is one more location in mathematics wbelow infinity is important: in set theory.

Set theory recognizes infinities of multiple “sizes”, the smallest of which is the set of positive integers: 1, 2, 3, … . A set whose dimension is equal to the dimension of positive integer set is dubbed countably infinite.

“Countable infinity plus one” If we add one more facet (say 0) to the collection of positive integers, is the brand-new set any type of larger? To view that it cannot be larger, you can look at the difficulty differently: in set 0, 1, 2, … each element is sindicate smaller by one, compared to the set 1, 2, 3, … . So, also though we included an facet to the boundless collection, we really just “relabeled” the facets by decrementing eexceptionally value.

*
“Two times countable infinity” Now, let’s “double” the collection of positive integers by adding values 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, … The brand-new set could seem larger, because it consists of an boundless number of brand-new values. But aget, you can say that the sets are the very same size, just each facet is fifty percent the size:
*
“Countable infinity squared” To “square” countable infinity, we can develop a collection that will contain all integer pairs, such as <1,1>, <1,2>, <2,2> and so on. By pairing up eexceptionally integer with every integer, we are effectively squaring the size of the integer set.Can pairs of integers likewise be basically simply relabeled through integers? Yes, they can, and also so the collection of integer pairs is no larger than the collection of integers. The diagram listed below reflects just how integer pairs have the right to be “relabeled” via plain integers (e.g., pair <2,2> is labeled as 5):

*
“Two to the power of countable infinity” The set of integers consists of a countable infinity of elements, and also so the collection of all integer subsets have to – loosely speaking – contain two to the power of countable infinity elements. So, is the variety of integer subsets equal to the number of integers? It turns out that the “relabeling” trick we offered in the first 3 examples does not work-related here, and also so it appears that tbelow are more integer subsets than there are integers. Let’s look at the fourth instance in more information to understand also why it is so basically various from the initially three. You have the right to think of an integer subset as a binary number through an limitless sequence of digits: i-th digit is 1 if i is had in the subcollection and also 0 if i is excluded. So, a typical integer subcollection is a sequence of ones and also zeros going forever before and ever before, with no pattern arising.

And currently we are acquiring to the crucial distinction. Every integer, half-integer, or integer pair deserve to be defined making use of a finite number of bits. That’s why we can squint at the set of integer pairs and see that it really is just a set of integers. Each integer pair have the right to be conveniently converted to an integer and earlier.

However, an integer subcollection is an infinite sequence of bits. It is impossible to describe a general system for converting an boundless sequence of bits right into a finite sequence without information loss. That is why it is difficult to squint at the set of integer subsets and also argue that it really is simply a collection of integers.

The diagram listed below reflects examples of limitless sets of 3 different sizes:

*

So, in set concept, there are multiple infinities. The smallest infinity is the “countable” infinity, 0, that matches the number of integers. A bigger infinity is

*
1 that matches the number of actual numbers or integer subsets. And tbelow are also larger and also bigger infinite sets.

Since tbelow are even more integer subsets than tbelow are integers, it must not be surpincreasing that the mathematical formula below holds (you have the right to uncover the formula in the Wikipedia write-up on Continuum Hypothesis):

*

And because 0 denotes infinity (the smallest kind), it appears that it would not be a lot of a stretch to write this:

*

… and currently it appears that the answer to the question from the title must be “Yes”.

The answer

So, is it true that that 2∞ > ∞? The answer depends on which concept of infinity we usage. The infinity of borders has actually no size concept, and the formula would be false. The infinity of collection concept does have actually a dimension concept and also the formula would be type of true.

Technically, statement 2∞ > ∞ is neither true nor false. Due to the ambiguous notation, it is impossible to tell which principle of infinity is being supplied, and also consequently which rules use.

Who cares?

OK… but why would anyone care that tright here are 2 different notions of infinity? It is simple to obtain the impression that the conversation is simply an intellectual exercise via no valuable effects.

On the contrary, rnlinux.orgus knowledge of the 2 kinds of infinity has actually been very necessary. After effectively expertise the first sort of infinity, Isaac Newton was able to build calculus, complied with by the theory of gravity. And, the second kind of infinity was a pre-requisite for Alan Turing to define computcapacity (view my write-up on Numbers that cannot be computed) and also Kurt Gödel to prove Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

See more: Which Level Of Classification Contains The Most Organisms? ?

So, expertise both kinds of infinity has cause vital insights and helpful breakthroughs.