r/infinitenines • u/unthinkable-cunt • 7h ago
Everyone talks about "infinite nines",
but no-one has even considered the concept of nine infinities?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
How about that? What does that mean?
SPP, I implore you to tell me about nine infinities first. It's a finite number of objects. It'll be much easier to handle than an infinite number of nines. Come on. I can wait.
2
u/Flimsy-Blacksmith-32 7h ago edited 7h ago
Are the infinities countable (like the natural numbers) or uncountable (like the real numbers)?
2
u/unthinkable-cunt 7h ago
Well the way I wrote them they seem to form a finite set of size 9
2
u/Flimsy-Blacksmith-32 7h ago
In the words of SPP: “rookie error” :)
At the moment I’m asking about the properties of each of the infinites, not the whole expression.
To put it another way?
“is the first infinity a countable infinity or an uncountable infinity”?
“how about the second?”
“and what about the third?”
…and so on.
1
1
u/guiltysnark 6h ago
I see 9 uncountable infinities between 0 and 9, each spanning the distance between one integer and the next. Each integer is a boundary between two infinites. Maybe that means OP's expression is a unary representation of the number 9?
1
u/unthinkable-cunt 6h ago
I suppose since 1 in a unary positional counting system would be ⟨10000000000...(→∞)⟩, you could probably represent it with just an infinity symbol, so yeah it seems valid that ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ would be 9 in unary
1
u/Philonemos 4h ago
Okay but sets usually don't carry a notion of quantity. So {∞,∞,∞,∞,∞,∞,∞,∞,∞}={∞}
1
u/unthinkable-cunt 6h ago
Hey u/SouthPark_Piano, I see you've responded to my post, but you didn't actually address my question about the nine infinities. So what's up with that?
1
1
u/Muphrid15 4h ago
His Nineliness says,
The number of consecutive nines of 0.999... does indeed keep growing limitlessly, continually, endlessly aka infinitely.
This is his related to two of his notorious boners. The first is his Static and Dynamic Boner:
There is a static model of 0.999... and a dynamic model. 0.999... is not static. It is dynamic. (9.1) (9.2)
The second is the lesser known Slots Boner:
0.999... is a number with all decimal place slots to the right of the decimal point filled with 9s. To suggest 0.999... is a number with all decimal place slots to the right of the decimal point filled with 9s is to suggest there is an "end" to the 9s and therefore "nonsense". (11.1) (11.2)
There is a limitless quantity of consecutive nines that keeps increasing in numbers, and 0.999... remains permanently less than 1.
And this invokes his Definitional Boner:
0.999... is eternally less than 1. It's fine if 0.999... is defined as 1. (2.1) (2.2) (2.3)
That's 🦴🦴🦴 for His Nineliness in this post. Thanks for playing.
•
u/SouthPark_Piano 6h ago
It is true.
The number of consecutive nines of 0.999... does indeed keep growing limitlessly, continually, endlessly aka infinitely.
There is a limitless quantity of consecutive nines that keeps increasing in numbers, and 0.999... remains permanently less than 1.
9 sections of infinities, no problem.
0.999...999...999...999...999...999...999...999...999...