The Last Finite Number?
Date: 02/01/2004 at 10:59:46 From: Toxic Subject: The last finite number? I just read an article in a magazine that described a pair of numbers that I found intriguing. One was called "psi", and it was supposed to be the "last" finite number, i.e., the number just before infinity. The second was called the "end number", which is supposed to be the highest in the kingdom of numbers. Nothing is larger than the end number because by definition it is the last number. Is there anything to this?
Date: 02/02/2004 at 13:03:36 From: Doctor Vogler Subject: Re: The last finite number? Hi Toxic, Mathematics is axiomatical, which means that it does not inherently reflect what "is true" or "is not true" but rather it describes the consequences of certain simple assumptions. For example, we assume that there is some abstract quantity called a "one" and that you can add it to numbers to get other numbers, which, to give them names, we might as well call "two" and "three" and so on. Then we define a thing that we call multiplication, which has the curious effect of making certain numbers different from other numbers. Some numbers can't be made by multiplying together smaller numbers, and we call these primes. And so on. The point of all that is that you can create different kinds of numbers which behave rather differently. For example, after the integers we define rational numbers, then real numbers, and finally complex numbers. Then we can talk about vectors, which are sort of a different kind of number. When you get into things like infinity, then you should look into what we call "cardinality." I think you could learn a lot of information pertinent to your question by searching for "cardinality" in the Ask Dr. Math archives or on the internet. But then when you define a set of numbers, you next need to describe what operations you have on these numbers, and what properties they satisfy. If you can't define any operations that have any useful properties, then that is what we mathematicians would call an "uninteresting" set of numbers, because you can't do anything with them. You define them and then that's the end. So we like to stick to numbers that have useful properties. In the field of abstract algebra, we list a few of the most useful properties and talk about sets of numbers which have them, and we call these things groups and rings and fields (depending on how many operations and properties they have). For example, two useful properties that a set of numbers has is that they include a "unit" that we can multiply things by without changing them (that is, the number one), and that you can always add or multiply two things and get something else. So what happens if you add one to psi? If it is a finite number, then adding one shouldn't make it infinite. But it would have to be bigger than psi. Do you see why this would cause problems in defining an addition operation if you have a "last finite number"? And what happens if you add one to the "end number"? Okay, this is an infinite number, so you could argue that adding a finite amount to it shouldn't change its size. But if you learn about cardinality, you'll find that the power set of a set of this size is necessarily bigger. So what would that number be? In other words, the article may have speculated about these numbers, and you could certainly define a set of numbers that contains them, but you could not define operations on these numbers that have any meaningful properties about them. So they wouldn't really serve any useful purpose. If you have any questions or need more help, please write back, and I will try to offer further advice. - Doctor Vogler, The Math Forum http://mathforum.org/dr.math/
Search the Dr. Math Library:
Ask Dr. MathTM
© 1994-2013 The Math Forum