[QUOTE=xilman;248465]"oo" has been used for many years.


Paul[/QUOTE]

He doesn't go above alt 127 according to a PM I sent him.What haven't I answered already ? anyone else got something for me to practice ?

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248468]what haven't I answered already ? anyone else got something for me to practice ?[/QUOTE]Apologies if I misled you. My observation that "oo" (i.e two consecutive lowercase-o characters) has long been used as the ASCII symbol for infinity was aimed at davar55.

You seem to be doing fine right now.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;248472]Apologies if I misled you. My observation that "oo" (i.e two consecutive lowercase-o characters) has long been used as the ASCII symbol for infinity was aimed at davar55.

You seem to be doing fine right now.
[/QUOTE]

xilman and I agree that you're doing fine

thanks for the info on eka-ascii ( 128 to 255 )

anyone but a mathematician can use oo as infinity with impunity

we know better

[QUOTE=xilman;248472]Apologies if I misled you. My observation that "oo" (i.e two consecutive lowercase-o characters) has long been used as the ASCII symbol for infinity was aimed at davar55.

You seem to be doing fine right now.

Paul[/QUOTE]

I know you were talking to davar55 , what I wonder is could I take and example at random and apply all the terms, I think I'll have trouble with that.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248483]I know you were talking to davar55 , what I wonder is could I take and example at random and apply all the terms, I think I'll have trouble with that.[/QUOTE]

Practice makes perfect.

Try it you'll like it.

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.

[QUOTE=davar55;248481]xilman and I agree that you're doing fine

thanks for the info on eka-ascii ( 128 to 255 )

anyone but a mathematician can use oo as infinity with impunity

we know better[/QUOTE]A mathematician may also use it as long as it is clear what that particular digraph is intended to mean in that context. Once more: it has been used in that sense for many years.

[QUOTE=xilman;248494]A mathematician may also use it as long as it is clear what that particular digraph is intended to mean in that context. Once more: it has been used in that sense for many years.[/QUOTE]

Of course, I've done so myself.

As I said, a mathematician has to be more precise and careful
about such things.

[QUOTE=davar55;248484]Practice makes perfect.

Try it you'll like it.

The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.[/QUOTE]

that poked it's head a while ago. I was going to try to prove something on the integers[TEX]\gt[/TEX]1 but I haven't got anything but saying this is a well known fact to back up anything I say is true.

[QUOTE=Mr. P-1;248435]I think you meant:

#(A union B) = #A+#B - #(A intersect B)

Can you show that this is always the case for finite sets?[/QUOTE]

I know this is already known but the reason I can't extend it to infinity is solely based on a fact I should well know and that's [TEX]\infty +\infty = \infty[/TEX] from that fact (which I admit i saw in the text and didn't think about) we can see that [TEX]#(A union A) = 2*#A - #(A intersect A) = \infty - \infty = {undeterminable}[/TEX] I see the reason using the previously mentioned fact this is based on that [TEX]\infty-\infty = {undeterminable}[/TEX] because according to the logic [TEX]\infty + \infty = \infty[/TEX] one could claim [TEX]\infty-\infty = \infty[/TEX] or based of the example [TEX]x-x=0[/TEX] claim[TEX]\infty-\infty = 0[/TEX] or based on [TEX]x - \infty = -\infty[/TEX] which I thought I saw in the text[TEX] \infty - \infty = -\infty[/TEX]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248512]that poked it's head a while ago. I was going to try to prove something on the integers[TEX]\gt[/TEX]1 but I haven't got anything but saying this is a well known fact to back up anything I say is true.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;248524]I know this is already known but the reason I can't extend it to infinity is solely based on a fact I should well know and that's [TEX]\infty +\infty = \infty[/TEX] from that fact (which I admit i saw in the text and didn't think about) we can see that [TEX]#(A union A) = 2*#A - #(A intersect A) = \infty - \infty = {undeterminable}[/TEX] I see the reason using the previously mentioned fact this is based on that [TEX]\infty-\infty = {undeterminable}[/TEX] because according to the logic [TEX]\infty + \infty = \infty[/TEX] one could claim [TEX]\infty-\infty = \infty[/TEX] or based of the example [TEX]x-x=0[/TEX] claim[TEX]\infty-\infty = 0[/TEX] or based on [TEX]x - \infty = -\infty[/TEX] which I thought I saw in the text[TEX] \infty - \infty = -\infty[/TEX][/QUOTE]

Infinity is a harder concept than zero, even though
colloquially, infinity equals one over zero. Sounds '
deceptively simple. It isn't simple.

For an introduction, try counting by ones from one to infinity.

When you're done, post here.

sm: A very good rule of thumb is that "infinity" is not a word used by mathematicians. There are a wide variety of concepts of the infinite in math, but they go by other names (alpeh-0, epsilon-0, the surreals, the hyperrreals, etc.).