[Guest]

There is an equation that is 1+1=Infinity. Can you explain how this works?

[Izzy]

i think 1 ADAM and 1 EVE made infinity people

therefore 1 + 1 = infinity.

... <_< Actually, no, I'm not letting that go. There are 6-7 billion people alive right now. That's pretty far off the mark. Also, I think it was Adam and Steve.

Okay, bed time, really now.

[Guest]

yes a bacteria via asexual reproduction.....

[Guest]

... <_< Actually, no, I'm not letting that go. There are 6-7 billion people alive right now. That's pretty far off the mark. Also, I think it was Adam and Steve.

Okay, bed time, really now.

How many people are not alive right now. There are 3 billion base pairs of DNA, therefore the mathematical potential for human life works out to be astronomically diverse. The crazy thing is, however, even if two people ar born with the same DNA (i.e. twins) they are still different people.

In the course of human history, more people have died than could ever live on Earth at the same time, a significantly larger number than 6-7 billion.

Again, the question is about potential. The whole idea of infinity is a number that is always growing, but that is what asymptotes are for in math, there is no such thing as infinity people, just a growth trend that points toward it.

[Guest]

yes a bacteria via asexual reproduction.....

Bacteria are not the only things that reproduce asexually.

[Guest]

you're all 'smart' aren't you? i'm what most would call 'not smart'. because you're hurting my brain. AND OH MY GOSH THERE'S A NEW SMILEY!!!!

well anyway zanther hasn't said anything in a while. he should try to explain it.

and guys, if you have another riddle, make a new thread.

Edited March 18, 2009 by UGG BUYS UGLY HOUSES!

[bushindo]

How many people are not alive right now. There are 3 billion base pairs of DNA, therefore the mathematical potential for human life works out to be astronomically diverse. The crazy thing is, however, even if two people ar born with the same DNA (i.e. twins) they are still different people.

In the course of human history, more people have died than could ever live on Earth at the same time, a significantly larger number than 6-7 billion.

Again, the question is about potential. The whole idea of infinity is a number that is always growing, but that is what asymptotes are for in math, there is no such thing as infinity people, just a growth trend that points toward it.

You are quite correct in that the idea of infinity is a number that grows without any upper bound. However, the number of people on earth, even counting those deceased, is microscopically small in view of the grander scheme of things. The question here is potential. There is an upper bound to how many human that can ever exist in this universe. The number of total atoms in the universe, for instance, has an upper bound of somewhere around 10^100, or a google. I think it is fairly safe to say that the cumulative total human population won't ever exceed the total number of atoms in the universe. Even then, a google is trivially small compared to what 'infinity' could be, since we could easily construct larger numbers such as ( 10^100 * 10^100 ), or even (10^100^100) and so on.

I prefer to solve this riddle from a mathematical perspective. All you need to do is prove that 1 =2, proofs of which are not hard to find. Once you have that, proving 1 + 1 = infinity is easy. Granted it is based on the incorrect proof of 1=2, but i feel it is more satisfying.

[Guest]

OH MY GOSH THERE'S MORE OF THEM!!!!

and

but you must type a code.

anyways...

zanther, i would like your thinking regarding this riddle, because right now it looks like a FLAWED riddle. good one, though.

[Izzy]

How many people are not alive right now. There are 3 billion base pairs of DNA, therefore the mathematical potential for human life works out to be astronomically diverse. The crazy thing is, however, even if two people ar born with the same DNA (i.e. twins) they are still different people.

In the course of human history, more people have died than could ever live on Earth at the same time, a significantly larger number than 6-7 billion.

Again, the question is about potential. The whole idea of infinity is a number that is always growing, but that is what asymptotes are for in math, there is no such thing as infinity people, just a growth trend that points toward it.

Just because something has the capability to increase to astoundingly high amounts, doesn't mean that this quantity breaks the barrier of finite it infinite. We can still calculate DNA variations (or write programs that do so for us), and assign then a very finite value. Sure, they'll keep increasing, just as death counts keep increasing. But again with the nihilist view, this is only true as long as the human species (or the universe in general, whatever you want) exists. In the end, the model fails (as you said, and I agree models are useful in general), and everything that's ever happened can be, if someone were there to record it, recorded in finite amounts. The chance for infinity =/= infinity.

[Izzy]

MODS: So we don't get this thread locked, would it be possible to merge the posts into a new one?

[Guest]

Just because something has the capability to increase to astoundingly high amounts, doesn't mean that this quantity breaks the barrier of finite it infinite. We can still calculate DNA variations (or write programs that do so for us), and assign then a very finite value. Sure, they'll keep increasing, just as death counts keep increasing. But again with the nihilist view, this is only true as long as the human species (or the universe in general, whatever you want) exists. In the end, the model fails (as you said, and I agree models are useful in general), and everything that's ever happened can be, if someone were there to record it, recorded in finite amounts. The chance for infinity =/= infinity.

ya, i agree with izzy on that, the human race will eventually die out for whatever reason, even if it is in, like a trillion years. if we go to each planet, we will eventually drain every planet of natural resources, but that will take a really long time, but not infinite time. in other words: we will not last forever.

[Guest]

then I would disagree, because the human species is only going to survive a few billion more years (maybe), and there certainly aren't an infinite amount of us alive, and there never will be.

LOL

That's just a little optimistic.

[Guest]

cell divison

Cell division is an asexual process, i.e. 1 -> 2 -> 4 -> 8 -> 16 -> ... -> infinity. This is the model, so it's better to assume 1 = infinity.

[Guest]

Also, representing cell division by 1+1 is illogical. Cell division could more accurately be represented by 2^n where n is the amount of divisions.

Before division there is one (2^0 = 1).

First division there are two (2^1 = 2).

Second division there are four (2^2 = 4).

To represent cell division reaching infinite you would have to multiply 2 to the power of infinite, which is not only redundant but also illogical because infinity isn't one number, it's a range of all possible numbers.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Llam4

[bonanova]

MODS: So we don't get this thread locked, would it be possible to merge the posts into a new one?

Lively debate about lots of topics, few if any of which qualify as a brain teaser.

Won't be locked, but will be moved to Others.

[Izzy]

Lively debate about lots of topics, few if any of which qualify as a brain teaser.

Won't be locked, but will be moved to Others.

Cheers.

[Guest]

Silly! 1+1= fish!!!! (Just like 2+2= a window, and 3+3= a kiss, and C+D= beta)

[Izzy]

2+2=5

For very large quantities of 2.

[Guest]

2+2=5

For very large quantities of 2.

NO! it equals a window! Right No1slight? Anyway... now u know why I fail math. LOL

[Guest]

Just because something has the capability to increase to astoundingly high amounts, doesn't mean that this quantity breaks the barrier of finite it infinite. We can still calculate DNA variations (or write programs that do so for us), and assign then a very finite value. Sure, they'll keep increasing, just as death counts keep increasing. But again with the nihilist view, this is only true as long as the human species (or the universe in general, whatever you want) exists. In the end, the model fails (as you said, and I agree models are useful in general), and everything that's ever happened can be, if someone were there to record it, recorded in finite amounts. The chance for infinity =/= infinity.

Of course we can calculate DNA combinations, which is why I pointed out that 2 people with identical DNA are not the same person. You are still missing the point that this is a model, it doesn't need to be practically possible if it is potentially possible. Given the right set of circumstances (i.e. infinite space, food, energy, reproductive capability, every organism mates, minimum offspring per mating pair...) then it is theoretically possible that any 2 reporductively capable organisms could create an infinite number of offspring, including any which may happen to have the same genetic code as separate entities. Even if lifespan is not infinite, as long each organism produces enough offsring to replace itself and its mate plus 1, the system has the potential to grow indefinitely.

[Izzy]

Of course we can calculate DNA combinations, which is why I pointed out that 2 people with identical DNA are not the same person. You are still missing the point that this is a model, it doesn't need to be practically possible if it is potentially possible. Given the right set of circumstances (i.e. infinite space, food, energy, reproductive capability, every organism mates, minimum offspring per mating pair...) then it is theoretically possible that any 2 reporductively capable organisms could create an infinite number of offspring, including any which may happen to have the same genetic code as separate entities. Even if lifespan is not infinite, as long each organism produces enough offsring to replace itself and its mate plus 1, the system has the potential to grow indefinitely.

But that's what I was trying to point out earlier. We don't live in some some picture-perfect artificial universe with magical circumstances fine-tuned to support life. The only way that you could get an infinite amount of people is if the human race bred unchecked, and was sufficiently supplied with food, space etc, for an infinite amount of time. None of that is going on. I suppose for food, cannibalism could take place, but the Earth doesn't have enough water (seeing as it's a fixed amount) to support an infinite amount of people. Humans take up a finite amount of space, and the amount of space that is habitable for a living person is finite. Even if we extend our species to Mars, and other 'Goldilocks Zone Planets', eventually we'll overpopulate them, and not have any more places to retreat to because we don't have the technology/whatever to get there. It's the same with cells, except cells aren't conscious, and can't go anywhere else when there isn't any room for them. So even theoretically, no, it could never happen. A model is just an approximation of what the real thing is, and since this model couldn't happen in the real-world, it's irrelevant.

[Guest]

You are quite correct in that the idea of infinity is a number that grows without any upper bound. However, the number of people on earth, even counting those deceased, is microscopically small in view of the grander scheme of things. The question here is potential. There is an upper bound to how many human that can ever exist in this universe. The number of total atoms in the universe, for instance, has an upper bound of somewhere around 10^100, or a google. I think it is fairly safe to say that the cumulative total human population won't ever exceed the total number of atoms in the universe. Even then, a google is trivially small compared to what 'infinity' could be, since we could easily construct larger numbers such as ( 10^100 * 10^100 ), or even (10^100^100) and so on.

I prefer to solve this riddle from a mathematical perspective. All you need to do is prove that 1 =2, proofs of which are not hard to find. Once you have that, proving 1 + 1 = infinity is easy. Granted it is based on the incorrect proof of 1=2, but i feel it is more satisfying.

You are working under the assumption that no population of organisms will ever reach a number higher than the total count of atoms in the universe. I would say that no organism is made up of the same atoms even from day to day, let alone birth to death. Atoms are dissipated and recombined into new organisms and the question does not require that all of the organisms must still be alive, for philosphically speaking just because you are dead does not mean you cease to exist or to have existed. A single mating pair of mice can turn into a living population of millions in a very short time. Ants are more populous and bacteria more so, although not sexually reproductive. The number of organisms to have existed on the planet is astronomically high, easier greater than the number of stars in the universe and growing at a much faster rate. If this were alowed to continue forever unchecked it would become infinite, and that is the point of the model.

[Guest]

But that's what I was trying to point out earlier. We don't live in some some picture-perfect artificial universe with magical circumstances fine-tuned to support life. The only way that you could get an infinite amount of people is if the human race bred unchecked, and was sufficiently supplied with food, space etc, for an infinite amount of time. None of that is going on. I suppose for food, cannibalism could take place, but the Earth doesn't have enough water (seeing as it's a fixed amount) to support an infinite amount of people. Humans take up a finite amount of space, and the amount of space that is habitable for a living person is finite. Even if we extend our species to Mars, and other 'Goldilocks Zone Planets', eventually we'll overpopulate them, and not have any more places to retreat to because we don't have the technology/whatever to get there. It's the same with cells, except cells aren't conscious, and can't go anywhere else when there isn't any room for them. So even theoretically, no, it could never happen. A model is just an approximation of what the real thing is, and since this model couldn't happen in the real-world, it's irrelevant.

What is the point of even having asymptotes and infinity in math? They are impossible to achieve, so what's the point? All math is just models, and scientific models are just math. In math, it doesn't need to be possible.

[Izzy]

What is the point of even having asymptotes and infinity in math? They are impossible to achieve, so what's the point? All math is just models, and scientific models are just math. In math, it doesn't need to be possible.

What do you mean what's the point? Math isn't a tool for scientists, math is greater than all science, just scientists use a small portion of it. Math isn't "for" anything, it's the only pure intellectual endeavor. If some physicist/biologist wants to come along and use our system then fine, but it wasn't derived for that, nor is it maintained or changed for that. Math is pure, perfect, and proven. It's not just some scientific model. Math pwns everything.

[Guest]

What do you mean what's the point? Math isn't a tool for scientists, math is greater than all science, just scientists use a small portion of it. Math isn't "for" anything, it's the only pure intellectual endeavor. If some physicist/biologist wants to come along and use our system then fine, but it wasn't derived for that, nor is it maintained or changed for that. Math is pure, perfect, and proven. It's not just some scientific model. Math pwns everything.

Newton would beg to differ, he invented calculus for science, as was most math. Conceptually it was created as a tool for financing, science or engineering. Only recently did it become its own entity.

[Izzy]

Newton would beg to differ, he invented calculus for science, as was most math. Conceptually it was created as a tool for financing, science or engineering. Only recently did it become its own entity.

Newton didn't invent calculus, he discovered it. The same way pi, i, e, etc. were discovered. The math has always been here, we've just created a language out of it to make it more understandable. 'Only recently did it become its own entity' is like going back to when the electrons were discovered and blowing them off completely, because 'only recently did they become their own entity'.