I considered deleting the post, but this seems more cowardly than just admitting I was wrong. But TIL something!
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Hey. Sorry, I'm not at all a mathematician, so this is fascinating to me. Doesn't this mean that, once the two sets have reached their value, the set of 100 dolar bills will weigh 100 times less (since both bills weigh the same, and there are 100 times fewer of one set than the other)?
If so, how does it reconcile with the fact that there should be the same number bills in the sets, therefore the same weight?
I like this comment. It reads like a mathematician making a fun troll based on comparing rates of convergence (well, divergence considering the sets are unbounded). If you’re not a mathematician, it’s actually a really insightful comment.
So the value of the two sets isn’t some inherent characteristic of the two sets. It is a function which we apply to the sets. Both sets are a collection of bills. To the set of singles we assign one value function: “let the value of this set be $1 times the number of bills in this set.” To the set of hundreds we assign a second value function: “let the value of this set be $100 times the number of bills in this set.”
Now, if we compare the value restricted to two finite subsets (set within a set) of the same size, the subset of hundreds is valued at 100 times the subset of singles.
Comparing the infinite set of bills with the infinite set of 100s, there is no such difference in values. Since the two sets have unbounded size (i.e. if we pick any number N no matter how large, the size of these sets is larger) then naturally, any positive value function applied to these sets yields an unbounded number, no mater how large the value function is on the hundreds “I decide by fiat that a hundred dollar bill is worth $1million” and how small the value function is on the singles “I decide by fiat that a single is worth one millionth of a cent.”
In overly simplified (and only slightly wrong) terms, it’s because the sizes of the sets are so incalculably large compared to any positive value function, that these numbers just get absorbed by the larger number without perceivably changing anything.
The weight question is actually really good. You’ve essentially stumbled upon a comparison tool which is comparing the rates of convergence. As I said previously, comparing the value of two finite subsets of bills of the same size, we see that the value of the subset of hundreds is 100 times that of the subset of singles. This is a repeatable phenomenon no matter what size of finite set we choose. By making a long list of set sizes and values “one single is worth $1, 2 singles are worth $2,…” we can define a series which we can actually use for comparison reasons. Note that the next term in the series of hundreds always increases at a rate of 100 times that of the series of singles. Using analysis techniques, we conclude that the set of hundreds is approaching its (unbounded) limit at 100 times the rate of the singles.
The reason we cannot make such comparisons for the unbounded sets is that they’re unbounded. What is the weight of an unbounded number of hundreds? What is the weight of an unbounded number of collections of 100x singles?
Is it possible for infinite numbers to be larger than others? Or are all infinite numbers equal?
There are different things which could be called "infinite numbers." The one discussed in the other reply is "cardinal numbers" or "cardinalities," which are "the sizes of sets." This is the one that's typically meant when it's claimed that "some infinities are bigger than others," because e.g. the set of natural numbers is smaller (in the sense of cardinality) than the set of real numbers.
Ordinal numbers are another. Whereas cardinals extend the notion of "how many" to the infinite scale, ordinals extend the notion of "sequence." Just like a natural number always has a successor, an ordinal does too. We bridge the gap to infinity by defining an ordinal as e.g. "the set of ordinals preceding it." So {} is the first one, called 0, and {{}} is the next one (1), and so on. The set of all finite ordinals (natural numbers) {{}, {{}}, ...} = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} is an ordinal too, the first infinite one, called omega. And now clearly {omega} = omega + 1 is next.
Hyperreal numbers extend the real numbers rather than just the naturals, and their definition is a little more contrived. You can think of it as "the real numbers plus an infinite number omega," with reasonable definitions for addition and multiplication and such, so that e.g. 1/omega is an infinitesimal (greater than zero but smaller than any positive real number). In this context, omega + 1 or 2 * omega are greater than omega.
Surreal numbers are yet another, extending both the real and hyperreal numbers (so by default the answer is "yes" here too).
The extended real numbers are just "the real numbers plus two formal symbols, "infinity" and "negative infinity"." This lacks the rich algebraic structure of the hyperreals, but can be used to simplify expressions involving limits of real numbers. For example, in the extended reals, "infinity plus one is infinity" is a shorthand for the fact that "if a_n is a series approaching infinity as n -> infinity, then (a_n + 1) approaches infinity as n -> infinity." In this context, there are no "different kinds of infinity."
The list goes on, but generally, yes-- most things that are reasonably called "infinite numbers" have a concept of "larger infinities."