/lit/ - Literature

1^1 = 1*1 = 1/1
^1 = *1 = /1
^ = * = / = 1

take that information, and do with it what you will...

>>14643725
There cannot be a plurality of infinities as there is only one mathematics. Any infinity would be subsumed into infinity there is only one infinity. Therefore many participates in the one and the one in the many but the many is not the one.

>>14643822
>There cannot be a plurality of infinities as there is only one mathematics.
Well, actually this statement was proven false by Cantor like over a hundred years ago.

>>14643862
Either there will be infinities being one infinity each or a whole infinity. Both will participate in the one again.

>>14643862
Isn't Cantor's plurality of infinities highly controversial?

>>14644339
Well, I don't see how it would be, I have never heard it presented as controversial. You simply compare two infinities with a mapping, same as you would compare countable sets - if A has the same amount of stuff as B, I can assign to each element of B one and only one element A. If there are some elements left over, that means one set is bigger than to other.

>>14644362
> Cantor's theory of transfinite numbers was originally regarded as so counter-intuitive – even shocking – that it encountered resistance from mathematical contemporaries such as Leopold Kronecker and Henri Poincaré[3] and later from Hermann Weyl and L. E. J. Brouwer, while Ludwig Wittgenstein raised philosophical objections. Cantor, a devout Lutheran,[4] believed the theory had been communicated to him by God.[5] Some Christian theologians (particularly neo-Scholastics) saw Cantor's work as a challenge to the uniqueness of the absolute infinity in the nature of God[6] – on one occasion equating the theory of transfinite numbers with pantheism[7] – a proposition that Cantor vigorously rejected.

> The objections to Cantor's work were occasionally fierce: Leopold Kronecker's public opposition and personal attacks included describing Cantor as a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth".[8] Kronecker objected to Cantor's proofs that the algebraic numbers are countable, and that the transcendental numbers are uncountable, results now included in a standard mathematics curriculum. Writing decades after Cantor's death, Wittgenstein lamented that mathematics is "ridden through and through with the pernicious idioms of set theory", which he dismissed as "utter nonsense" that is "laughable" and "wrong".[9][context needed] Cantor's recurring bouts of depression from 1884 to the end of his life have been blamed on the hostile attitude of many of his contemporaries,[10] though some have explained these episodes as probable manifestations of a bipolar disorder.

Everybody from Wittgenstein, to Guenon, to Thomists seem to despise Cantor. Find it very strange that you've never heard of this.

>>14643822
Didn't Proclus argue that the One emanates from a primordial multiplicity?

>>14644390
>Everybody from Wittgenstein, to Guenon, to Thomists
...those are not mathematicians

>>14643725
Unity real. Multiplicity fake.

>>14644390
>a devout Lutheran
His retardation is starting to make a lot more sense now.

>>14644362
>two infinities
Contradiction.
>amount of stuff
>parts
Contradiction.

>>14644439
Thankfully, in mathematics the word "retardation" has no meaning. It deals with purer concepts, over which the emotions of simpletons hold no sway.

DUDE WEED LMAO

>>14644455
>in mathematics the word "retardation" has no meaning
Idk bro, take a look at so-called "applied mathematics" or "set theory" papers. That might change your mind.

>>14644452
I don't think you can do away with the concept of the "element" in mathematics. Infinity has to be defined, and for it to be defined the concept of a "set" is also necessary. If you can do without, please, illumine me - not with vagueries but with mathematics.

>>14644472
And I invite you to look in the mirror, and you will see the ugly, primitive face of a flat-earther.

>>14644390
>Everybody from Wittgenstein, to Guenon, to Thomists

Why the fuck would they know anything about mathematics though?

>>14644495
>Why the fuck would they know anything about mathematics though?
He was proficient at Greek, Latin, English, Italian, German, Spanish, Sanskrit, Hebraic, Arabic and Chinese, was trained in mathematics and was extremely well-read in both eastern and western philosophy

>>14644479
>primitive
Based.
>flat-earther
Based!

>>14644520
Wittigenkek was just a petulant child that threw temper tantrums at anything that he found threatening, from mathematics to philosophy.

>>14643766
Shut up retard

What a meaningless question.

>>14643822
do you guys actually not know that words are used differently in different fields/contexts?

>>14644422
CryptoBuddhist detected

>>14644396
he argues the opposite

>>14644520
>trained in mathematics
Yeah, that doesn't mean he wasn't an opinionated idiot about mathematics. Cantor's argument for continuum infinity > discrete infinity has never been refuted. You should read up on something BEFORE forming an opinion, brainlet.

>>14644750
indefiniteness is different from infinity

>>14644750
>>continuum infinity > discrete infinity
>'infinity' being 'discrete' and thus with parts.
>'infinity' being able to map within the same level of reality onto a fully discrete object like the natural numbers (representing a mode of 'pure quantity' as shown by René Guénon (pbuh)) thus splitting it into parts
>'infinity' being ordered in a hierarchy
>'infinity' not being 'one'
All of this has been methodically and rigorously refuted by the brilliant mathematician known as René Guénon (pbuh).

See this wise post >>14644793.

>>14644591
Guénon (rightfully) argues extensively against the perversion and 'profanization' of language, especially when it relates to such important concepts. I for one try to always say 'indefinite' if I absolutely need to use the word.

>>14644945
>>14644990
Fuck off autistic troglodyte

>>14644995
t. Whiteheadian tranny hylic buddhist anglo

>>14644793
>>14644945
>>14644990
>>14645028
Based brothers...

>>14644995
Cringe and Bugman.

>>14644474
I suppose you could always reject the axiom of infinity.

>>14644990
I can understand why one might want to argue against the perversion of language, and I think that you are right that OP is def asking questions closer to metaphysics than formal mathematics based on how he formulated his question. I think indefinite is indeed a better term. I am only vaguely familiar with Guenon's work. Could you tell me how he proposes solving this problem of perversion and profanization?

>>14645324
>Could you tell me how he proposes solving this problem of perversion and profanization?
Globally, so to speak, it is unsolvable so far as we are in the present state of the cosmic cycle. It's just a consequence of how the world is.
Locally, one must attach oneself to the immutable and supra-individual (in the form of a valid orthodox tradition which maintains an unbroken chain of spiritual influence to the supra-human) to escape the pernicious effects of this all-encompassing perversion and profanization.

I recommend reading crisis of the modern world and then reign of quantity if you're interested in this, he explains all of it very clearly and much better than I can.

>>14645516
>in the form of a valid orthodox tradition which maintains an unbroken chain of spiritual influence to the supra-human
I think I will probably read both of those works since they seem so popular here and are touted to directly "refute" people such as ANW. But could you tell me how *you* determine the validity of traditions? I'm aware of the esoteric/exoteric distinction, but that seems to me open to the possibility of new exoteric traditions as long as the esoteric core remains. Surely there are many practices with no connection to this core, but how can we determine that the ones that already are, are all that can be?

>>14643822
checked

You need to realise that just because something makes sense in mathematics, it doesn't necessarily have implications for the real world.

Examples of stuff that can be proved mathematically but is conceptually useless in real life:

>Set of rational numbers (infinite) is smaller than the set of real numbers (infinite).
>You can make two spheres by breaking up one sphere and rearranging the pieces (Banach–Tarski paradox)

All these rely on infinitely large and infinitesimally small quantities.

>>14643725
If x is a quanta then x*0 = x*1 = x*\infty follow when working with finite commutative wheels. It really goes to show how much a visionary Guénon (pbuh) was.

>>14645810
>Set of rational numbers (infinite)
It has parts. It is not One.
>set of real numbers (infinite)
It has parts. It is not One.

>>14645889
If things that are not One exist (even theoretically, in the sense that you can speculate about them) that means there is no One, but Many. That is because Oneness is an abstract concept.

>>14646114
>If things that are not One exist
They do not truly exist. They merely appear to, hence one can speculate about them as one would speculate about objects appearing in a dream.
>that means there is no One, but Many
Indeed, but this is only if things that are not One exist, which is already contradiction.

>>14646114
>If things that are not One exist (even theoretically, in the sense that you can speculate about them) that means there is no One, but Many. That is because Oneness is an abstract concept.

>>14644390
>>14644362
While Cantor's ideas are mostly accepted today, they rest upon a set of axioms that were devised later (Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory grounded by the axiom of choice). This says very little about its metaphysical status though, and devising claims about the true nature of the infinite, unity and multiplicity is not something any set-theorist is particularly interested in doing.

Numbers refuted by guenon and parmenides, pic related

>>14646142
Existence is a contradiction. Non-existence already implies two. It is through their interplay, that we get the multitude. The fullness of existence might as well be the emptiness of oblivion, if taken to it's limit - like a fully packed room where none could move. Music can only sound if it also contains Silence. Is. Is Not. The Everlasting Ineffable Light, and the Corrupting Inexpressible Action. In the middle is the Gray Maybe which we inhabit.

>>14646224
>Existence is a contradiction. Non-existence already implies two. It is through their interplay, that we get the multitude. The fullness of existence might as well be the emptiness of oblivion, if taken to it's limit - like a fully packed room where none could move. Music can only sound if it also contains Silence. Is. Is Not. The Everlasting Ineffable Light, and the Corrupting Inexpressible Action. In the middle is the Gray Maybe which we inhabit.

>>14646202
Series is not an infinite sum - as the operation of addition can be only done one a finite number of arguments. "Infinity" is not a valid value. If a series is conditionally convergent and r is any real number then there will always be a rearrangement whose value will be r.

>>14646279
>taking anything on this board seriously
/lit/ will never be as good as /sci/

>>14646311
>being insincere
>good

>>14643862
Absolute Infinity contain all Infinities, including itself, an infinite amount of times.

>>14646325
>contains all
So it has parts... Cool...

>>14646338
Unnumbered, but that wasn't answering the question of OP anyway.

Therefore a one comes forth from a one, as Dionysus from Zeus, or plurality comes from a unity, as the many gods are from Zeus, or one is from many, as when the soul is said to proceed from all things before itself, and that which is always generated is from all the causes that are prior to it, or many proceed from many, as we say the sensible things are from the intelligibles.
But nevertheless each of the two is everywhere, the one and the multiplicity,
even if sometimes it is the many as the one, and sometimes it is the one as the
many. And sometimes the one is by itself and the many are by themselves.
Therefore we shall not arrive at an infinite regress if we search always for the
unmultipliable One before the One-many; indeed this absolute One by itself is the cause of the many, since as one, it is nevertheless all things, because it is before all things, not as one thing among all things, nor yet is a certain one that is a composite from all things, but truly one, and thus all things together as the One itself. But the second principle is all things itself, but as the many of itself. For this was the many of that One, because all multiplicity subsists around the One, as all power subsists around its own substance.
Thus we ascend to this principle from the all many, as we ascend from the One-all to the One. Each of the principles is all things, the One as all things together, and the many as the many-all. And perhaps all things proceed from the One as already fashioned, and many from the second principle as still indefinite and unbounded and not yet perfect.

Things don't exist, only processes.

>>14646224
dw anon hegelian logic is still taking its time to sublimate into mass consciousness

>>14646687
>hegelian logic

>>14646202
that proof by contradiction at the end is a great punchline

>>14646687
>hegelian
>logic
>a profane idea of time
>''mass'' ''consciousness''
Refuted by Rene Guenon (pbuh) in his Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times.

>>14646696
>>hegelian logic

Guenonfag shitted up my thread and not many people tried to answer the question.

>>14643822
>>14644038
are these prophecies or posts on a proto-fascist cantonese image board

Which axioms of ZFC would Guenon (pbuh) consider profane?

>>14647193
He (pbuh) would rightfully consider the entirety of ZF(C) itself an abomination.

>>14647481
Would Guenon (pbuh) go so far as to consider the concept of "Set" itself as profane?

>>14647508
No, for a set is merely a mode of manifestation of pure quantity, not unlike the natural numbers themselves. It is a legitimate concept when given its proper place; that place certainly not being anywhere near "sufficient (and even necessary as claimed by some highly despicable beings) to describe all mathematical objects in a non-degenerate way".

>>14646687
>Hegel

Refuted by Advaita Vedanta, see this thread:

>>/lit/thread/S13208492

This entire thread is an example of what would happened in philosophy if Ernst Mach didn't exist