this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
942 points (97.5% liked)

Science Memes

11448 readers
1766 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
942
hmmmm (mander.xyz)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
207 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Then wouldn't that make this statement false?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Which statement?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2, none of which are 3.

If there are infinite numbers, then there's 3 in there somewhere. If 3 is not there then it's not infinite.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh okay.

If there are infinite numbers, then there's 3 in there somewhere.

No, this is not true. Just because you have infinitely many numbers in some collection, doesn't mean one of the numbers in your collection has to be 3.

Look at the number line. There are infinitely many numbers on the number line between 1 and 2. For example 1+1/2, 1+1/4, 1+1/8, ... are in there (among many others). But all of the numbers between 1 and 2 are strictly smaller than 3, so none of them can be 3.

Alternatively, there are infinitely many numbers strictly smaller than 3, none of which are 3 either.

If 3 is not there then it's not infinite.

Well consider the set of numbers 3+1, 3+2, 3+3, 3+4, ... (the set of integer numbers strictly larger than 3). This set of numbers is also infinite and does not contain 3. So a set being infinite doesn't imply it must contain the number 3.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

Ah, thank you for the explanation. That makes sense now.