this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
377 points (97.0% liked)
Comic Strips
13114 readers
3203 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But there are infinities which are larger and smaller than other infinities.
-infinity is smaller than +infinity for the most simple example.
I assume that mean Infinity Light or Infinity Heavy, like ruler measurements.
To add to what Kabi said, IIRC only when you're speaking in set or groups do the infinities become "larger" (simplified and not 100% accurate). I.E. infinity of regular numbers vs infinity containing all the variations of positive integers added. The latter would be "larger" cause it contains multiple infinities or "sets" of infinities and is infinite within itself. This video helps explain probably better
https://youtu.be/dEOBDIyz0BU
Sure, "-∞ < ∞" is a useful concept, but it is not the same thing as when we talk about the sizes of infinities. What we mean by that is how many numbers it contains: (1,2,3,4...) contains fewer numbers than (1.0,...,1.1,...,1.5,...,2.0,...,2.5,...), but how large the actual numbers are, doesn't matter. The second example contains just as many numbers, is just as "large", as (1.0,...,2.0).
edit: Sorry for the snarky tone, I was going for nerd maths boy. Hope I at least am technically correct.
Yeah, I was going for simple rather than correct. I didn't want to get into explaining Cantor's Diagonalization to Lemmy folk.