I considered deleting the post, but this seems more cowardly than just admitting I was wrong. But TIL something!
This kind of thread is why I duck out of casual maths discussions as a maths PhD.
The two sets have the same value, that is the value of both sets is unbounded. The set of 100s approaches that value 100 times quicker than the set of singles. Completely intuitive to someone who’s taken first year undergraduate logic and calculus courses. Completely unintuitive to the lay person, and 100 lay people can come up with 100 different wrong conclusions based on incorrect rationalisations of the statement.
I’ve made an effort to just not participate since back when people were arguing Rick and Morty infinite universe bollocks. “Infinite universes means there are an infinite number of identical universes” really boils my blood.
It’s why I just say “algebra” when asked what I do. Even explaining my research (representation theory) to a tangentially related person, like a mathematical physicist, just ends in tedious non-discussion based on an incorrect framing of my work through their lens of understanding.
For what it’s worth, people actually taking the time to explain helped me see the error in my reasoning.
There’s no problem at all with not understanding something, and I’d go so far as to say it’s virtuous to seek understanding. I’m talking about a certain phenomenon that is overrepresented in STEM discussions, of untrained people (who’ve probably took some internet IQ test) thinking they can hash out the subject as a function of raw brainpower. The ceiling for “natural talent” alone is actually incredibly low in any technical subject.
There’s nothing wrong with meming on a subject you’re not familiar with, in fact it’s often really funny. It’s the armchair experts in the thread trying to “umm actually…” the memer when their “experience” is a YouTube video at best.
It’s the armchair experts in the thread trying to “umm actually…” the memer when their “experience” is a YouTube video at best.
And don’t you worry, that YouTuber with sketchy credibility and high production values has got an exclusive course just for you! Ugh. Lol
Yeah I sell cabinets and sometimes people are like “How much would a 24 inch cabinet cost?”
It could cost anything!
Then there are customers like “It’s the same if I just order them online right?” and I say “I wouldn’t recommend it. There’s a lot of little details to figure out and our systems can be error probe anyway…” then a month later I’m dealing with an angry customer who ordered their stuff online and is now mad at me for stuff going wrong.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it that a simple statement(this is more worth than the other) can’t be done, since it isn’t stated how big the infinities are(as example if the 1$ infinity is 100 times bigger they are worth the same).
Sorry if you’ve seen this already, as your comment has just come through. The two sets are the same size, this is clear. This is because they’re both countably infinite. There isn’t such a thing as different sizes of countably infinite sets. Logic that works for finite sets (“For any finite a and b, there are twice as many integers between a and b as there are even integers between a and b, thus the set of integers is twice the set of even integers”) simply does not work for infinite sets (“The set of all integers has the same size as the set of all even integers”).
So no, it isn’t due to lack of knowledge, as we know logically that the two sets have the exact same size.
OK thanks for your explanation.
deleted by creator
So to paraphrase, the raging person in the middle is right? I’ll take your answer no questions asked.
In short, yes.
The two sets have the same value, that is the value of both sets is unbounded. The set of 100s approaches that value 100 times quicker than the set of singles.
Hey. Sorry, I’m not at all a mathematician, so this is fascinating to me. Doesn’t this mean that, once the two sets have reached their value, the set of 100 dolar bills will weigh 100 times less (since both bills weigh the same, and there are 100 times fewer of one set than the other)?
If so, how does it reconcile with the fact that there should be the same number bills in the sets, therefore the same weight?
I like this comment. It reads like a mathematician making a fun troll based on comparing rates of convergence (well, divergence considering the sets are unbounded). If you’re not a mathematician, it’s actually a really insightful comment.
So the value of the two sets isn’t some inherent characteristic of the two sets. It is a function which we apply to the sets. Both sets are a collection of bills. To the set of singles we assign one value function: “let the value of this set be $1 times the number of bills in this set.” To the set of hundreds we assign a second value function: “let the value of this set be $100 times the number of bills in this set.”
Now, if we compare the value restricted to two finite subsets (set within a set) of the same size, the subset of hundreds is valued at 100 times the subset of singles.
Comparing the infinite set of bills with the infinite set of 100s, there is no such difference in values. Since the two sets have unbounded size (i.e. if we pick any number N no matter how large, the size of these sets is larger) then naturally, any positive value function applied to these sets yields an unbounded number, no mater how large the value function is on the hundreds “I decide by fiat that a hundred dollar bill is worth $1million” and how small the value function is on the singles “I decide by fiat that a single is worth one millionth of a cent.”
In overly simplified (and only slightly wrong) terms, it’s because the sizes of the sets are so incalculably large compared to any positive value function, that these numbers just get absorbed by the larger number without perceivably changing anything.
The weight question is actually really good. You’ve essentially stumbled upon a comparison tool which is comparing the rates of convergence. As I said previously, comparing the value of two finite subsets of bills of the same size, we see that the value of the subset of hundreds is 100 times that of the subset of singles. This is a repeatable phenomenon no matter what size of finite set we choose. By making a long list of set sizes and values “one single is worth $1, 2 singles are worth $2,…” we can define a series which we can actually use for comparison reasons. Note that the next term in the series of hundreds always increases at a rate of 100 times that of the series of singles. Using analysis techniques, we conclude that the set of hundreds is approaching its (unbounded) limit at 100 times the rate of the singles.
The reason we cannot make such comparisons for the unbounded sets is that they’re unbounded. What is the weight of an unbounded number of hundreds? What is the weight of an unbounded number of collections of 100x singles?
I got tired of reading people saying that the infinite stack of hundreds is more money, so get this :
Both infinites are countable infinites, thus you can make a bijection between the 2 sets (this is literally the definition of same size sets). Now use the 1 dollar bills to make stacks of 100, you will have enough 1 bills to match the 100 bills with your 100 stacks of 1.
Both infinites are worth the same amount of money… Now paying anything with it, the 100 bills are probably more managable.
Now paying anything with it, the 100 bills are probably more managable.
I’d take the 1’s just because almost everywhere I spend money has signs saying they don’t take bills higher than $20.
The reason infinity $100 bills is more valuable than infinity $1 bills: it takes less effort to utilize the money.
Let’s say you want to buy a $275,000 Lamborghini. With $1 bills, you have to transport 275,000 notes to pay for it. That will take time and energy. With $100 bills, you have to transport 2750 notes. That’s 100x fewer, resulting in a more valuable use of time and energy.
Even if you had a magical wallet that weighed the same as a standard wallet and always a had bills of that type available to pull out when you reach in. It’s less energy to reach in a fewer number of times.
Let’s toss in the perspective of the person receiving the money, too. Wouldn’t you rather deal with 2750 notes over 275,000, if it meant the same monetary value? If you keep paying in ones, people will get annoyed. Being seen favorably has value.
Value is about more than money.
Fair, but there’s also a lot of businesses that don’t accept $100 bills which would make paying for smaller everyday things annoying, and realistically I don’t think any car dealership would want to deal with 2,750 $100 bills either. Besides, with infinite money you could hire people to count and move the money for you, if it’s $1 bills instead of $100 bills you simply hire 100 times as many people!
I think it would be easier to go to thebank now and then to exchange some of your $100 for lower value bills than to do the opposite.
Besides, if there are places that don’t take bills less than $20, there are a lot of places that aren’t going to let you pay with only $1 bills. I can’t imagine a car dealership letting you do that. Or if you want to buy a home, etc.
This is wrong. Having an infinite amount of something is like dividing by zero - you can’t. What you can have is something approach an infinite amount, and when it does, you can compare the rate of approach to infinity, which is what matters.
Tbh I think this is correct. Not necessarily mathematically, idk maths, but realistically paying with infinite 100$ Bills is easier than with 1$ Bills. Therefore it saves time and so the .infinite 100$ Bills are worth more
Might just be me.
Why are people upvoting this post? It’s completely wrong. Infinity * something can’t grow faster than infinity * something else.
Because the number of dollars is not the only factor in determining which is better. If I have the choice between a wallet that never runs out of $1 bills or one that never runs out of $100 bills, I’ll take it in units of $100 for sure. When I buy SpaceX or a Supreme Court justice or Australia or whatever, I don’t want to spend 15 years pulling bills out of my wallet.
Certain infinities can grow faster than others, though. That’s why L’Hôpital’s rule works.
For example, the area of a square of infinite size will be a “bigger” infinity than the perimeter of an infinite square (which will in turn be a bigger infinity than the infinity that is the side length). “Bigger” in the sense that as the side length of the square approaches infinity, the perimeter scales like
4but the area scales likex^2(which gets larger faster asxapproaches infinity).Those are all aleph 0 infinities. There’s is a mathematical proof that shows the square of infinity is still infinity. The same as “there is the same number of fractions as there is integers” (same size infinities).
It might give use different growth rate but Infinity is infinite, it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity. Infinity is the range of all the numbers ever, you can’t increase that set of numbers that is already infinite.
but in this case we are comparing the growth rate of two functions
oh, you mean like taking the ratio of the derivatives of two functions?
it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity
but that’s not the scenario. The question is whether $100x is more valuable than $1x as x goes to infinity. The number of bills is infinite (and you are correct that adding one more bill is still infinity bills), but the value of the money is a larger $infinity if you have $100 bills instead of $1 bills.
Edit: just for clarity, the original comment i replied to said
Lhopital’s rule doesn’t fucking apply when it comes to infinity. Why are so many people in this thread using lhopital’s rule. Yes, it gives us the limit as x approaches infinity but in this case we are comparing the growth rate of two functions that are trying to make infinity go faster, this is not possible. Infinity is infinite, it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity. Infinity is the range of all the numbers ever, you can’t increase that set of numbers that is already infinite.
∞ = ∞ x 2
An infinite number of bills would mean there’s no space to move or breathe in, right? We’d all suffocate or be crushed under the pressure?
We’d all suffocate or be crushed under the pressure?
hey just like regular capitalism
Depends on implementation.
There’s a hierarchy called cardinality, and any two infinitives that can be cleanly mapped 1:1 are considered equal even if one “looks” bigger, like in the example from OP where you can map 100x 1 dollar bills to each 100 dollar bill into infinity and not encounter any “unmappable” units, etc.
So filling an infinite 3D volume with paper bills is practically equivalent to filling a line within the volume, because you can map an infinite line onto a growing spiral or cube where you keep adding more units to fill one surface. If you OTOH assumed bills with zero thickness you can have some fun with cardinalities and have different sized of infinities!
Wouldn’t an infinite number of anything with physical mass collapse the universe as we know it and challenge our models of physics? But yeah sign me up for the Benjamin’s.
Infinity is not a number. Infinity is infinity.
People are confusing Infinity with lim x->Infinity. There’s a huge difference.
You’ve solved inflation!
Really seeing the iq spread here
Seriously though, infinity is Infinity, it’s not a number, it’s infinity.
Infinities can be different sizes (although in OPs case they are not): https://www.cantorsparadise.com/why-some-infinities-are-larger-than-others-fc26863b872f?gi=d5e83e23c757
The people struggling with this are the same ones that think a ton of lead is heavier than a ton of feathers
You can have infinities of different sizes
You can. This is not one of them
True, but understanding that different sizes of infinity exist and applying that incorrectly is not the same as not realizing that “a ton is a ton”.
It’s a fair analogy to obscure some complexity.
Got a better one?
