▲ 928 ▼ Infinite Monkey Theorem (lemmy.world) submitted 1 year ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world [M] to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 63 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah I think we're on the same page there, I was just pointing out a limitation of the thought experiment that draws attention to the fact that infinity only allows what's improbable possible and doesn't make the impossible possible. But yeah it doesn't undermine the idea that introducing infinities gives unintuitive results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yeah I think we're on the same page there, I was just pointing out a limitation of the thought experiment that draws attention to the fact that infinity only allows what's improbable possible and doesn't make the impossible possible. But yeah it doesn't undermine the idea that introducing infinities gives unintuitive results. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
[+] ameancow@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago Yeah I think the recentness of formalizing infinities into math with Newton's and Leibnez's calculus (infinite series, limits approaching infinity) in the 1600s and Cantor's sets (cardinality of infinite sets) in the late 1800s speaks to the difficulty of even conceptualizing the problems they introduce and the rigor needed to handle them permalink fedilink source parent
