Reply To: Infinity

[Nick]

Andy, to me you wrote, ”
… You may like the math definition you propose, but it\’s just one more definition to prove my hypothesis. Infinity is undefined in science, and literally meaningless as is currently understood.

Here\’s a quick search on another definition for infinity.

Mathematics
– a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).“

I agree. “Infinity” is a formal math construct so I do use the formal math/academic definition which you correctly state does NOT map to science. There is no science definition of “infinity” other than the math definition. Because of that, you take on the task of redefining “infinity” for use in the sciences. Maybe you will or have come up with a definition for a useful construct in science, BUT it needs to be named something new (i.e., something other than “infinity) – especially where your parameters “constant” and “changing” are NOT integral to the construct of (math/academic) “infinity”.

Separately, I’ll note that a colloquial or loose definition of “infinity” should NOT replace math’s exacting definition in science.

[Nick]

Andy, to me you wrote, ”
… You may like the math definition you propose, but it\’s just one more definition to prove my hypothesis. Infinity is undefined in science, and literally meaningless as is currently understood.

Here\’s a quick search on another definition for infinity.

Mathematics
– a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).“

I agree. “Infinity” is a formal math construct so I do use the formal math/academic definition which you correctly state does NOT map to science. There is no science definition of “infinity” other than the math definition. Because of that, you take on the task of redefining “infinity” for use in the sciences. Maybe you will or have come up with a definition for a useful construct in science, BUT it needs to be named something new (i.e., something other than “infinity) – especially where your parameters “constant” and “changing” are NOT integral to the construct of (math/academic) “infinity”.

Separately, I’ll note that a colloquial or loose definition of “infinity” should NOT replace math’s exacting definition in science.