Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 03:01:41 UTC No. 16451612

integers are contained within the reals if that's what you mean

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 03:10:55 UTC No. 16451623

>>16451612
That seems equally self-consistent, but no.

I guess to elaborate, I conceived of a self-contained infinity similar to that of matryoshka dolls with a dimension of curvature, and I assume that due to their being different degrees of infinity, then there would be a similar curve of amplitude where the greatest, absolute value was ultimately infinity itself.
That said, is there a limit to greater degrees of infinity, as they finite, or have we just yet to analyze the relations between higher numbers to discover if there’s some underlying, fundamental relational pattern between them, i.e. a new “prime-like” number when a certain quantity is reached, therefore establishing the existence of a different infinity.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 04:26:48 UTC No. 16451695

>>16451608
yes fractas

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 04:27:57 UTC No. 16451697

>>16451608
>>16451695
the set of alll functions of....
can decribe with in the function a replicaiton of hte function, which makes it a set of all fonctions of...

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 04:32:10 UTC No. 16451704

>>16451697
a machine creates a human creates an empire creates an god creates a cigi ball creates a live creates a machine

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 04:33:50 UTC No. 16451706

>>16451704
creates a star empire creates a living star creates a human god creates a dream creates a ethernal wood creates a....

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 04:36:02 UTC No. 16451707

>>16451706
creates a world which moves like this which is wad had happend

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 04:42:38 UTC No. 16451716

>>16451608
Yes.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 05:20:44 UTC No. 16451755

>>16451608
Sure, let X = {X, 1, 2, 3, 4...}

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 05:27:06 UTC No. 16451766

>>16451755
Cool, thank you.
Now I have to ask, is an infinite set containing itself the only type of set that resolves a problem of infinite regress?

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:35:59 UTC No. 16452447

>>16451755
>>16451766
You might be looking for this. He replaces the axiom of well foundedness with another one that allows circular definitions.

Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:41:29 UTC No. 16452454

>>16451766
>>16452447
X = {Y, 1, 2 ,3, 4, ...}
Y = {X, -1, -2, -3, -4, ...}
but I am rather hungover, so. . .

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 01:01:20 UTC No. 16453025

>>16451608
Rephrase the question in Haskell, then you'll have your answer

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 02:44:37 UTC No. 16453148

>>16451608
Yes, technically speaking every set is a subset of itself. It's not a unique subset, but A \subset A is an axiomatic definition within set theory. In fact, the only subsets every set is guaranteed to contain is itself and the empty set.

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 05:46:50 UTC No. 16453229

>>16452447
So what's the set of all sets that do not contain themselves?

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 07:54:52 UTC No. 16453324

>>16451623
This is just the mathematical equivalent of chunibyo gobbledegook

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 06:08:15 UTC No. 16455644

>>16451623
>due to their being different degrees of infinity,
There aren't, infinity just mean no upper limit which can be applied to numerators or denominators for things that are either infinitely large or infinitesimally small.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 06:09:58 UTC No. 16455645

>>16451608
0=0+0+0+...=0*0*0*...

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 02:51:43 UTC No. 16456579

>>16451608
>>16451623
A) ZF set theory has the axiom of regularity, which prevents sets from containing themselves.

B) try picrel

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:45:29 UTC No. 16457373

First define set, of, infinity, and contained within.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:45:58 UTC No. 16457436

>>16451608
Only with the union with the nothingness

DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:46:46 UTC No. 16457437

>>16451608
define "contained"

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:47:02 UTC No. 16457439

>>16457436

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:52:19 UTC No. 16457446

>>16451608
Nobody can know that. Infinity is unknowable. It's an infinite number, meaning unending. Unquantifiable. So maybe.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:11:56 UTC No. 16457471

>>16457446
Cries in Cantor.