Budimir Zdravkovic

PhD student in biochemistry/cancer biology,


This conversation is closed.

Can three infinities be greater than one?

The idea is very simple but the conclusion may redefine our very concept of infinity and quantity unless I am wrong.

There are infinite possible positions in one dimensional space. That is if we assume that a given position is infinitely small or that one dimensonal space stretches infinitely. Two dimensonal space offers more possibilities than one dimensonal space since two dimensional space has all possible positions of one dimensional space plus all possible positions that can occupy the second dimenson that was added. And we can keep adding dimensions thus creating more possible positions with each added infinity.

What seems to emerge is that as you add more dimensons you are adding more possible positions relative to the previous number of dimensons but you are not necessarily increasing the number of positions because the number will always be infinity. Thus you can add more to a quantity without increasing it.


  • thumb
    Mar 30 2011: Isn't it quite simple, infinite is infinite?
    although... the more you think about it the more complex it becomes... damn!
    I once (when I was 16) wrote that there is no such thing as infinity, that the problem was simply that we could not comprehend a number that big so we just called it infinite... still it is way bigger then Googolplex...
    • thumb
      Mar 31 2011: I think you are onto something. The more I thought about this the more I realized that even by saying something like "three infinities" we are denoting a number value to infinity.

      Once we do that infinity has a number value and this it can be treated like any other number. This is no different than how we treat inches for instance, Three inches are greater than one because we already assigned a number value. But a single inch object and a three inch object both have an infinite amount of parts at least mathematically, when we don't assign a number value to compare them by.
  • Mar 31 2011: Infinite is infinite, but the absolute distance between two random points in an infinite 1d, 2d, and 3d space (which have equal point densities on their axises) would tend to be smaller as you increase dimensions. So while an infinite 1d space provides an equally unending number of locations as an infinite 3d space, the 3d space has more locations that are of near proximity than the 1d space. As you described them, these would each represent different densities in a given infinite space. But simply putting the points closer together would have the same affect. An infinite 1d line where the points where 1cm apart would be less dense than an infinite line where the points were 1mm apart; but both would have an equally infinite number of points.

    Infinite can be different in rates of growth as well as densities. A line y = x grows at a rate of O(n) as it approaches infinity, but a curve y = x^2 grows at a rate of O(N^2) or exponentially faster as it approaches infinity. Rates of growth as you approach infinite (represented here by Big O Notation*) are important and they demonstrate how two different infinite quantities can behave differently. But, in the end, they both contain the same unending quantity of whatever.

    Big O Notaton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
    • thumb
      Apr 1 2011: what is the absolute distance between two random points? give me a number
      • Apr 1 2011: The absolute distance would be whatever straight line distance between the two points exists (after looking this up the term I was looking for was Euclidean distance). But when choosing random points in a more densely populated space, you're more likely to choose points closer together than two randomly chosen points in a less densely populated space. It's just a probability demonstration of how two infinite sets can behave differently even though both have the same unending quantity of points.

        My math knowledge is somewhat limited to what I've specialized in. As a programmer, I do work with growth rates as quantities approach infinite daily. I don't remember how to make my example clear as a mathematical representation, but obviously there's no one number that represents the distance between two random points. But there would be equations that demonstrate the probable difference when selecting from the two different pools of points.
        • thumb
          Apr 1 2011: i didn't mean to ask for definition, but an example. my point is that your statements are ill-defined. i'm not a mathematician either, so i don't know if we can talk about evenly distributed random number from an infinite set. if there is such a thing, then the average distance between to random point on the line is infinite. similarly, the distance of two random points in space is also infinite. so you can't really say one is bigger than the other. or can you?
      • Apr 4 2011: @Krisztián Pintér Ya, my math skills aren't what they used to be. Thinking about what you said, I think you're right. As you approach infinity when picking random points, the distance between the two points would also approach infinite no matter what the density of the points would be. I wish I had time to write the proof to figure it out (or even look it up) but I don't. If that is the case, though, it would certainly be further evidence that the different infinites are still equally infinite even though one is more densely populated than the other.

        This is making me wish I was back in college as a Math major. I forgot how much fun it can be.
    • thumb
      Apr 2 2011: I understand that with additional dimensons each point is surrounded by more "neighbouring" points. But in terms of the distance decreasing, why does a given distance decrease, is it something to do with indtroducing new vectors into the space?

      I only had to take two years of calculus in college and that was also a long time ago so I apologize if my knowledge is rusty. In what I do I only need roughly 10% of the calculus I learned. .
      • Apr 4 2011: Well as Krisztián pointed out, the distances actually approach infinite as the random selections approach infinite, but I was thinking more within a given range (which was where I made my mistake). But within that finite space, if you plot out 1 million points an equal distance apart from each other in both a 1d and 3d space, the distance between the two furthest points on the 1d line would be 1 million units. Where in the 3d space, you would only have 100 units of length on each side of the cube (to create a cube with 1 million 1 unit spaced points within it). So the distance between the points furthest from each other would be only 100 units.

        A visual representation of a smaller scale could be thought of as a piece of paper with 64 equally spaced points in a line for a 1d space, then a piece of paper with a 8x8 square of points for the 2d space, then for the 3d space, you need a 4x4x4 cube of points. So when you measure the furthest straight line distance between the points in the different spaces, you get 64, 8 and 4 respectively. It's kind of like how the more you fold a piece of paper the "smaller" it gets.

        But it was all wrong to show differences in infinite groups because as you approach infinity picking random points also creates a distance between those points that approaches infinity. I think it would actually prove the opposite, in that the different densities of infinite spaces would actually behave the same, in my example, as you approach infinity.

        The order of growth stuff was correct though. It's helpful in programming so we can figure out if an algorithm is useful or not for very large inputs. If the order of growth is too great, when inputs are very large it would simply take too long, or too much memory, to use that algorithm.
  • thumb
    Mar 31 2011: The supreme source is One, all of other dimensions emerges from it, making infinity in dimensions :)

  • Mar 30 2011: It's really very interesting, maybe three infinities bring change in quality, because in terms of quantity - everything included, you can't make infinity last longer than infinity, it's infinitely long.
    • thumb
      Mar 31 2011: Interesting point. Now what do you mean by quality? Is there a specific quality you might have in mind?
      • Apr 1 2011: Sorry, Budimir, I don't have anything to add, actually, even one infinity is far beyond my brain capacity.It's a ghost idea, the shape, I thought, maybe somebody more advanced could fill it in, but it didn't happen. :)
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2011: the theory of different infinities goes back to Cantor, who proved that there are actually different infinities. more precisely, there can be two infinite sets with one of them having more items than the other.

    strangely, points on a line and points on a plane or even a 3d space is the same kind of infinity. so there are no more points on the plane than on the line. similarily, there are as many whole numbers as pairs of whole numbers.

    some material:
    • Mar 30 2011: Krisztian,thanks for links.
    • thumb
      Mar 31 2011: Yeah thanks Kristztian, I am familiar with Cantor but not in great amoung of detail.

      I came to the conclusion that Infinity and numbers is like comparing apples and oranges.
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2011: Something else also came to me. Once we speak about infinities in relation to numbers, like three infinities or even one infinity divded into three parts. Do they cease to be infinities since we have managed to group them or scale them?
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Mar 30 2011: Yeah this is a similar question that I raised after you commented. But for the sake of simplicity when I started out I was thinking of three inifinities in terms of three dimensonal space. Each dimenson is infinite, but since I gave each dimenson a number it might cease to be infinite since now it is a quantity. I might be contradicting myself so I better come back a little later with a more clear mind.