Talk:Infinity

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Infinity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Logic High‑importance Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic Mathematics Top‑priority Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale.

This article was selected as the article for improvement on 20 May 2013 for a period of one week.

Achilles v. Tortoise race duration

@D.Lazard: We are in agreement that Achilles takes ${\displaystyle {\frac {10}{0.99}}}$ seconds to overtake the tortoise. As a repeating decimal, that's 10.101010... seconds. You claim that this is ${\displaystyle 10{\frac {100}{99}}}$ seconds, but that works out to 11.010101... seconds. My replacement, ${\displaystyle 10{\frac {10}{99}}}$ yields 10.101010..., which is what we want.

Peter Brown (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

${\displaystyle 10{\frac {10}{99}}={\frac {100}{99}}=1.010101...}$ not ${\displaystyle 10.101010...}$ Oh, you do not mean a multiplication, but the vulgar fraction ${\displaystyle 10{\tfrac {10}{99}}}$. IMO, even correctly formatted, this must be avoided, as vulgar fractions are not commonly used in many countries. I'll add a multiplication sign. D.Lazard (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was interpreting ${\displaystyle 10{\tfrac {10}{99}}}$ as a mixed number. Now, it isn't obvious to me, or probably to the general reader, why ${\displaystyle {\frac {10}{1-0.01}}}$ should be equal to ${\displaystyle 10\times {\frac {100}{99}}}$ or why anyone should care. I am accordingly omitting this step. Peter Brown (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not persuaded that this mathematician solved Zeno's paradox in 1821. At minimum I recommend editing this to say that he claimed to solve the paradox. First, the only citation is to an original document in French. If this mathematician really did solve Zeno's famous paradox, an English citation or description of the work to show that it has stood up to peer review would be more persuasive. Second, and perhaps more compellingly, how does a repeating value solve a paradox that is primarily concerned with the problem of infinite regression? On the face of it, this does not seem to offer a solution to the paradox, but only supports the challenge/dilemma of the paradox further. Empiric78 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that which is

In this edit, Panamitsu changed "...that which is..." to "...something which is..." in the first sentence.

I think I understand the concern — that which is could be seen as excessively flowery or old-fashioned. But something which is does not strike me as an entirely adequate replacement, for a couple of reasons:

• First, I know this is a bit of an American preoccupation, but it ought to be something that is if anything
• More seriously, the reader is tempted to view this "something" as referring to some specific thing, and that is not what the article is about

Lacking a better suggestion, I would prefer to restore that which is, which is not that exotic and which fairly elegantly solves the specificity problem. But maybe we can come up with a third option which is ha, I did it myself better still? --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore Oh, sure, I'm just a bit confused about your concern about the article not being about a specific thing. Are you able to elaborate? In my mind, endless or infinite can only be used to describe something (whatever that may be), and that "something" in the article says "an arbitrary thing." Just like how the Oxford dictionary defines it as "a thing that is unspecified or unknown." Panamitsu (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My intuition is that this "something" can be read in two ways — it could be a "generic" something, or it could be some particular thing the speaker already has in mind (that would still be "arbitrary" in the sense that the word places no restriction on what the speaker might have in mind). For that reason I still like that which is better. --Trovatore (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore I disagree about your point about the reader already having something in mind, considering that it is at the start of the article. Pulling from the Oxford dictionary, how about we use something similar to "the quality of being endless"? Panamitsu (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the reader; the writer. It's like if I say "I have something to tell you". What you hear is that I have something specific already in mind, not that I just want to speak. So it could be interpreted as "there's this thing called infinity, and now I'm going to tell you some particular things about it, namely that it's boundless etc".

"Quality" seems to point too much away from interpretations that are objects (not that qualities can't be objects, but it's not what you think of).

What's really wrong with that which is? I thought it was kind of a nice solution. --Trovatore (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trovatore I've personally never heard of "that which is" before, so it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Perhaps it's a technical term that I just haven't been exposed to. Panamitsu (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"That which is" sounds perfectly fine to me, and is a common expression. Also, I don't think "something" is likely to be misunderstood in this context at the beginning of the article, though it does sound a bit awkward. Both solutions sound acceptable to me, though I prefer "that which is". seberle (talk) 10:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

exacting and ultra-exacting cardinals

"The discovery of exacting and ultra-exacting cardinals represents a significant advancement in set theory and large cardinal theory."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a63121596/exacting-cardinal-infinities/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2459158-mathematicians-have-discovered-a-mind-blowing-new-kind-of-infinity/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.11568

Juan Aguilera, a co-author of the paper from Vienna University of Technology

69.181.17.113 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest starting with the large cardinal page rather than here. This article should probably mention large cardinals at a high level (which currently it doesn't seem to), but not get into too much detail. --Trovatore (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle image

I'm still trying to figure out if I think the image of the Sierpiński triangle is a good idea. I have to admit I can't think of anything better off the top of my head. It's certainly better than just an image of the symbol, and probably better than at least the current image of the reflecting mirrors, which I think is visually kind of confusing and noisy.

But in any case I copyedited the caption. I don't know what it means for something to "contain an infinite amount of itself". I tried to replace it with something meaningful and accurate; not sure if it's too wordy. --Trovatore (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Sierpiński triangle is a good image here, and I think your text is fine. Personally I'd scrub the "because of its recursive pattern" to keep it snappy but I don't mind the current version. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I considered that. With your encouragement I'll go ahead and kill it. --Trovatore (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could use its animated GIF or another fractal zoom GIF which I think makes the recursion a lot more self-evident if that is the way we want to go, but in my opinion having a vanishing point image like File:Ambigram tessellation Milan - concentric circles.png portrays it very well without being overly distracting. It would work great for the printable version of the article too. I'd be against using any real-world example like the last image because there are none that truly exist. --– Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk} 19:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently unknown whether the entire universe (as opposed to the observable universe) is infinite.

I'm not a huge fan of animations in articles, but there's something to be said for the Sierpiński zoom. Could we make it sub in the static version for printable?

For the Milan thing, to be honest, I'm not sure what I'm looking at there.

As to whether there are any "that truly exist", that's sort of an open question. I've kind of toyed around in my head with the image at right (read the caption). I'm sure we could find a prettier one if we wanted to go that way. But the main thrust of this article seems to be mathematical rather than physical, so I kind of think probably not, but it's worth throwing out there. --Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we go with the animated GIF, the printable version will be the first frame which looks the same as the image we have. And there's nothing special about the Milan image, it just looks like a tunnel with no ending. The pi image does the same thing but it is also serves as a practical mathematical example so I would prefer that. I did see in the article that it's an open question about the universe but I meant we can't show a picture that truly shows the infinity of anything in the real world. If it's an open question, it's not the strongest example we can choose. I don't know if there's any examples of images that suggest that the universe might be infinite but the image there doesn't. With pi there's no obvious reason why it's infinite while with the Sierpiński triangle you can see by looking at it how it is able to fit inside itself and go on forever. – Mullafacation {◌͜◌ talk} 21:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm on board with something like the Sierpiński animation, but I would prefer higher resolution and maybe a little pause on the first frame. Right now it kind of looks "off-balance" as it immediately descends into a non-centered part of the image. I wonder if someone has come up with an animated version of SVG? --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the Sierpiński triangle ia a good first image, because the reader must have a rather good knowledge of infinity to understand where is the infinity of this image. IMO, this image is much more pedagogical:

D.Lazard (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's too symbolic, too text-based for my liking. The Sierpiński image at least moves away from symbolic representation.

We could also consider the zero option. When it's too hard to find an appropriate image, it's worth thinking about whether an image is really needed. Shoving in images purely pro-forma doesn't appeal to me.

That said, I do think the Sierpiński triangle is better than nothing, and I also prefer it to the decimal representation of π. --Trovatore (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't like putting the decimal approximation of pi. There are already too many people that have the misunderstanding that "pi is infinite." seberle (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity, documented by Vedic text Yajurveda (c. 8th century BC)

I noticed that infinity in this article is associated with Greek history, primarily, which documented it around 610–546 BC. Their concept was Apeiron (the infinite) as cosmic origin. However, Yajurveda documents it around 8th century BC or earlier. Their definition was in Infinity you minus or add parts, it still remains infinity.

I plan to make edits to this effect, and give equal or more weight to this concept being a Indian (both Hinduusm, and Jainism) concept.

From the vedic period the philosophical nature of infinity has been the subject of many discussions among philosophers.

And obviously add a full section on Indian vedic concept. Buddhimatta (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So first of all, given reliable sources that have made the connection, I do think it may be reasonable to treat ancient Indian concepts to some extent. We do already have a small subsection of the History section, called "Early Indian", which could probably be profitably expanded.

That said, it seems to be the consensus that this article is to be largely focused on the notion of infinity in mathematics. We have a separate infinity (philosophy) article that might be a better home for some of this history. I don't know that I completely agree with that division but it is the current one.

You should also be aware that there is a bit of a history of editors attempting to expand the treatment of the Jain notions for what seemed likely to be nationalistic (or possibly just anti-Western) reasons. There was an editor called Jagged 85 who got community-banned in the most overwhelming way I've ever seen, more than a decade ago, for widespread misrepresentation of sources, especially on video games, but at some point s/he also turned his attention to the transfinite number article, and was pushing the Jain stuff hard. This left a fairly bad taste that has not entirely gone away. That doesn't mean the material shouldn't be covered, but it would be a good idea to find good sources (if possible, ones without an axe to grind, though this is not an absolute requirement) in advance of editing. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for that thoughtful response and the historical context, @Trovatore

While I do belong to India, I am not religious. I have to acknowledge that I learned about concept of infinity early on due to my parents being religious (Jains). But as a editor, I am here to make wikipedia more trustable and factual. I wanted to focus on expanding the documented history, which from my understanding starts with the Hindu Vedas.

I have put together draft timeline that I was hoping to get a consensus on and then build the article modifications or new sections accordingly.

I also agree with you that the "mathematical concept" and the "philosophical concept" are so intertwined that it should be one article: Philosophy gives meaning to infinity, mathematics gives structure. Both are two ways of talking about the SAME concept. Kinda like "∞" is same as "Infinity".

Infinity Original Documented Timeline:

1. Yajurveda (Vedic India) Approximate Date: 8th century BC or earlier (~2800–2900 years ago from 2025) Trusted Sources: Chapter 2: Vedic and Puranic Cosmology https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2180120_Concepts_of_Space_Time_and_Consciousness_in_Ancient_India Atharva Veda (Vedic India) Approximate Date: 1000–800 BC (2800–3000 years ago from 2025) Trusted Sources: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vedic-religion
2. Anaximander (Greek) Approximate Date: 610–546 BC (~2550 years ago from 2025) Trusted Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312595450_FROM_THE_INFINITY_APEIRON_OF_ANAXIMANDER_IN_ANCIENT_GREECE_TO_THE_THEORY_OF_INFINITE_UNIVERSES_IN_MODERN_COSMOLOGY Anaxagoras (Greek) Approximate Date: 500–428 BC (2450 years ago from 2025) Trusted Sources: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=240MF0fzc8wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR1&ots=Hxow0A6spu&sig=k7fwH1SNAJTOb0xBAWT2XTMFPss&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=infinity&f=false
3. Jainism (Mahavira) Approximate Date: 6th century BC (~2600 years ago from 2025) Trusted Sources: https://pluralism.org/mahavira + https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=jdjNkZoGFCgC&q=infinity#v=onepage&q=infinite&f=false + https://www.scribd.com/document/776077970/The-BIG-BOOK-of-Jain-Concepts#content=query:infinity,pageNum:48,indexOnPage:0,bestMatch:false
4. Aristotle (Greek) Approximate Date: 384–322 BC (~2350 years ago) Trusted Sources: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-mathematics/

Buddhimatta (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buddhimatta: Please, do not use AI to reply to others. These comments may be collapsed per WP:AITALK. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 15:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Leonidlednev, Your analysis is False Positive. How does my hand written 2.5 hours of research get flagged as AI generated?? Are you using some AI tool which is actually not working. Will await your answer. Many thanks in advance. Buddhimatta (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buddhimatta: Sorry for the late reply (and the FP). I originally thought that the paragraph was generated by ChatGPT due to the presence of utm_source=chatgpt.com in the source URLs. Due to that, it triggered the filter, and made me check out the comment. In the future, make sure to check the sources and remove the tracking parameters from the URLs (right-click > copy clean link) so they are not tagged as being generated by AI. Leonidlednev (T, C, L) 18:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Buddhimatta (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]