The Instigator
Subutai
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
thespiveyman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Infinity Is Not a Real Number

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/21/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,061 times Debate No: 55865
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

Subutai

Pro

This debate will probably mark the end of my use of math debates. It's an old one I challenged someone to a while back, but they never accepted it. This debate is open to anyone, and lacks a formal structure. The first round will be for acceptance, and there'll be two rounds of debate. I will not define infinity itself, as any definition will confer an unfair advantage to one debater, but I will define what a real number is. A real number is a value that represents a quantity along a continuous line.[1]

Sources

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
thespiveyman

Con

I feel I could of taken either side of this debate, and please link any sources as far as links to math related subjects. I plan on arguing from a basis of infinite recurring patterns such as Fibonacci or Pi,

definition of infinity agreed as

MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol W34;). ?
Debate Round No. 1
Subutai

Pro

Returning to the definition of a real number, a real number is defined as "...a value that represents a quantity along a continuous line." The set of real numbers, along with the binary operation of addition, form a group called the reals. The reals obey certain axioms. Other rules can be deduced from those axioms. I will prove that if x and y are positive numbers, x+y is greater than both x and y.[1]

I will do this by contradiction - suppose that if x and y were positive real numbers, the x+y was not greater than both x or y. By one of the order axioms, x+y is also positive, or (x+y)>0. Suppose that x is greater than x+y (substituting y makes no difference). Then (x+y)<x, implying y<0, which is a contradiction, since y was defined to as a positive number. Therefore, by contradiction, if x and y are positive real numbers, then x+y is greater than both x and y.[2]

Using this, take the case of 1 and infinity. 1 is obviously positive and infinity is defined as positive. 1+infinity=infinity, but infinity is not greater than infinity. Therefore, either 1 or infinity is not a real number. 1 is defined to be a real number, so infinity must not be a real number.

Therefore, infinity is not a real number.

Sources

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk...;(see The Axioms - II The Order Axioms - (b))
thespiveyman

Con

thespiveyman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Subutai

Pro

Well it seems like everyone has been abandoning my debates recently. Extend my arguments.
thespiveyman

Con

thespiveyman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
I got an idea for the Con side.
Posted by FourTrouble 1 year ago
FourTrouble
Subutai, I'll take this debate. Since nobody has given you a chance to debate
It, I'll do it.
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
@mfigurski80: If 1+infinity > infinity, then infinity is no longer infinity by definition.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
1 + infinity > infinity
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
I was still pro.
Posted by Enji 1 year ago
Enji
As Pro or Con?

What defensible argument could Con present? A criticism of your treatment of 1+infinity=infinity might suffice for the first round of arguments, but this is easily rebutted by pointing out 1+infinity>infinity contradicts any typical definition of infinity (and the definition Con provides for that matter).
Posted by Subutai 1 year ago
Subutai
@Enji: This was actually a debate I challenged someone too several months back, but was denied.
Posted by Enji 1 year ago
Enji
This is just a mathematical truth. You even informally use the least upper bound property as your argument, which is a form of the completeness axiom used to define the real numbers. Was this ever a real debate?
Posted by WhiteFlower 1 year ago
WhiteFlower
Infinity is all of the numbers looping on themselves, which takes energy. Like white is all of the colors. Collecting all the colors= rainbow, or the color spectrum. Collecting all of the numbers= time.
Usually, expressed by the tilted 8 which is a visica pisces or sometimes an 0 (zero) an elongated circle or simply a circle. Time is 360 degrees, a wheel, as is the zodiac as is the earth per depiction Another such symbol is ouborous, the snake eating its own tail. Which is why the mayan used circles to describe time, cycles and we use clocks or the zodiac.
Breaking the circle or loop breaks time, which is exactly why time drags on "forever'. Time is an enclosure, quantifying and imprisoning a piece of NOthing to create someTHING.

We use physical symbols to describe quantities, the physical realm per definition is a limitation.

I would look into the concept of the flower of life, shapes, sound in color.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
infinity=0=nothing
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Subutaithespiveyman
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by n7 1 year ago
n7
Subutaithespiveyman
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF