 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Aleph-null green bottles standing on the wall,
Aleph-null green bottles standing on the wall,
And if one of those bottles should accidentally fall,
There'll be Aleph-null green bottles standing on the wall.
(Then again, one presumes that the gravitational field generated by a
countably infinite quantity of green bottles would somewhat exceed the
Earth's own gravitation. Although, since it fills a transfinite volume
as well... hmm, interesting.)
My personal favourit:
99 bottles of TNT standing on the wall,
99 bottles of TNT standing on the wall,
And if one of those bottles should accidentally fall,
There's be no more bottles of TNT, and no more ****ing wall.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Aleph-null green bottles standing on the wall,
> Aleph-null green bottles standing on the wall,
> And if one of those bottles should accidentally fall,
> There'll be Aleph-null green bottles standing on the wall.
>
Alternatively,
c green bottles standing on the wall,
c green bottles standing on the wall,
And if Aleph_null of those bottles should accidentally fall,
There'll be c green bottles standing on the wall.
though I suppose you need to be as old as me to talk about c rather than Aleph_1
> (Then again, one presumes that the gravitational field generated by a
> countably infinite quantity of green bottles would somewhat exceed the
> Earth's own gravitation. Although, since it fills a transfinite volume
> as well... hmm, interesting.)
>
If the wall was on earth, the bottles would have to decrease in size, and hence
mass, in order to fit on it, and no, I haven't decided what to do when the
volume of a bottle is less than that of a hydrogen atom.
>
> My personal favourit:
>
> 99 bottles of TNT standing on the wall,
> 99 bottles of TNT standing on the wall,
> And if one of those bottles should accidentally fall,
> There's be no more bottles of TNT, and no more ****ing wall.
I think it is:
99 bottles of nitro-glycerine ...
nitro being liquid and very susceptible to small shocks. I believe TNT is solid
and stable unless detonated by explosion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JimT wrote:
> though I suppose you need to be as old as me to talk about c rather than Aleph_1
The cardinallity of the continuum is equal to Beth-one, which is equal
to Aleph-one if and only if the continuum hypothesis holds. And the
continuum hypothesis is independent of the axioms of ZFC, so...
>> (Then again, one presumes that the gravitational field generated by a
>> countably infinite quantity of green bottles would somewhat exceed the
>> Earth's own gravitation. Although, since it fills a transfinite volume
>> as well... hmm, interesting.)
>>
> If the wall was on earth, the bottles would have to decrease in size, and hence
> mass, in order to fit on it, and no, I haven't decided what to do when the
> volume of a bottle is less than that of a hydrogen atom.
I wonder - is the volume of the universe infinite? (The volume of the
*obvservable* universe clearly isn't.)
For that matter, shouldn't a countable infinity of masses generate
enough gravity to collapse into a singularity?
> I think it is:
>
> 99 bottles of nitro-glycerine ...
>
> nitro being liquid and very susceptible to small shocks. I believe TNT is solid
> and stable unless detonated by explosion.
Apparently so. I was under the impression that they're both equally
unstable, but apparently not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I wonder - is the volume of the universe infinite? (The volume of the
> *obvservable* universe clearly isn't.)
This paper will at least give you something to think about, but be warned
it's a bit hairy!
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/DavisLineweaver04.pdf
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
JimT wrote:
> volume of a bottle is less than that of a hydrogen atom.
I think yo uhave to worry more about it being smaller than the Plank length.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> to Aleph-one if and only if the continuum hypothesis holds. And the
> continuum hypothesis is independent of the axioms of ZFC, so...
I thought I remembered reading that someone had proven that to be the case
like 10 years ago or so, but perhaps I misremember.
> Apparently so. I was under the impression that they're both equally
> unstable, but apparently not.
Indeed, the point of TNT is to make Nitro stable enough to be useful.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7/6/2010 9:05 AM, Invisible wrote:
> JimT wrote:
>
>> though I suppose you need to be as old as me to talk about c rather
>> than Aleph_1
>
> The cardinallity of the continuum is equal to Beth-one, which is equal
> to Aleph-one if and only if the continuum hypothesis holds. And the
> continuum hypothesis is independent of the axioms of ZFC, so...
What is Aleph-null? Is it the set of all integers? or is it something a
little different. I know it's basically a different sort of infinity...
[A Quick wiki detour later] Oh, Aleph-Null is basically any infinite
set, Aleph-One would be a set of all ordinals (positive integers and 0)
.. Interesting
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> What is Aleph-null? Is it the set of all integers? or is it something a
> little different. I know it's basically a different sort of infinity...
>
> [A Quick wiki detour later] Oh, Aleph-Null is basically any infinite
> set, Aleph-One would be a set of all ordinals (positive integers and 0)
> .. Interesting
Aleph-null is the *size* of a set (specifically, the set of natural
numbers). The technical term is "cardinality".
The set of all positive numbers (including or excluding zero) is
Aleph-null. In fact,
Aleph0 + x = Aleph0
Aleph0 * x = Aleph0
Aleph0 ^ x = Aleph0
assuming that x < Aleph0 (i.e., x is finite). For this reason, the set
of all integers (positive and negative) has size 2 * Aleph0 = Aleph0. In
other words, the set of all integers is THE SAME SIZE as the set of
positive integers. (So it really isn't especially important exactly
which set you use as your definition.)
Additionally, the set of all 2D coordinates has cardinality Aleph0 *
Aleph0 = Aleph0, so that's the same size too. The set of all rational
numbers also has the same size, as does the set of all algebraic numbers
(i.e., roots of polynomials - so that includes irrational square roots
and the like).
However, the set of all *real* numbers includes also transcendental
numbers - numbers which are not the root of any polynomial. And *this*
set has cardinallity Beth-one. And Beth-one > Aleph-null.
Aleph-one = 2 ^ Aleph-null
(Note that Aleph-null ^ 2 = Aleph-null, which isn't the same thing at all!)
If the continuum hypothesis is true then Beth-one = Aleph-one.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I think you have to worry more about it being smaller than the Plank
> length.
What happens to objects smaller than the Plank length? Do they fall
between the cracks and drop out of the bottom of the universe or something?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>
>> I think you have to worry more about it being smaller than the Plank
>> length.
>
> What happens to objects smaller than the Plank length?
Mu.
The question is meaningless, because there is no such thing as "smaller than
the Plank length". It's like saying "what happens when it gets bigger than
the universe?" or "how long did it take before time started?"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that its best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
