An Alternative Definition of Infinity

Each of us growing up in the educational system was taught the concept of infinity. If you are
like me, you were confused out of your mind.

The definition I got in high school was that infinity was this really big number, so big, that you
would have to keep counting forever to get to. Worse, once you get to this really big number,
it isn't even real anymore, which somehow can mean that it can be larger then itself, and if
divided by itself, can produce itself or possibly a finite number. To the average mind, this
seems nonsensical and illogical.

My purpose here, is to show that the conventional definition of infinity leads to conceptual
flaws from which necessarily results in a misinterpretation of mathematics and what it means.

Here we have a graph of the function

f=1/(x-3). Because in mathematics
you cannot divide by zero, x cannot
be a value of three. This is what is
known as a limit. Not sure what a
limit is? Click

here.www.mecca.org/~halfacre/MATH/limits

If x is greater then three but not much greater, then the value of the function is large. As x
continues to move closer to the value of three the function grows larger and larger. Likewise, if
x is less then three then the function is negative. As the value of x moves closer to three the
function continues to become more and more negative. Thus to the right of x=3, the functions
soars upward, and to the left of x=3, plunges downward.

According to conventional definition that I was taught, the curve continues upwards until it
reaches infinity and goes downwards until it reaches negative infinity. Both curves reach their
respective infinities as they close on their limit of x=3. The problem is the curve DOESN'T
actually reach anything. Not even an imaginary anything.

To deal with this problem, I propose an alternative definition of infinity which resolves these
problems and clarifies exactly what we are talking about:

An infinity is where something is independent of something else.

In our example infinity is just the idea that independent of what value of x is, so long as it is
not three, there will always be a value of x closer to three which will make the functions
magnitude larger. Or in simpler words, no matter which point you chose, so long as it is not
x=3, there will always be a point closer to three that will bring the function farther away from
zero.

If we look at other examples of

infinity we see that this definition
further clarifies what we are talking
about. For example, take the line y=x.
This line is made up of an infinite
number of points. But what does this
mean? To answer this question we
must ask ourselves, how do points
and lines relate to each other.
According to this new definition there
must be some kind of independence.
Indeed there is.

In order to define a line you must

have two or more points. It doesn't
matter how many points you have, so
long as you have more than one. Thus, the line exists independent of the number of points you
have, so long as you have more then one. Thus we say that the line is made up of an infinite
number of points.

It is important to note that this definition doesn't change the math, it just clarifies it. For
example: infinity/infinity=undefined.

The reason this is undefined in math is because we have not defined our infinities. Sometimes
in math infinity/infinity=2/3. This would be true if infinity/infinity=unchanging
2ness/unchanging 3ness.

Note: unchanging is synonymous with independence.

Infinity > infinity. This could be true if one infinity is defined to be a concept that is greater
then the other infinity.

unchanging blueness/ unchanging greenness = undefined.

Infinity is Symmetry
German mathematician Hermann Weyl defined symmetry as when something changes and
something else stays the same. Wouldn't this mean that infinity is the same thing as infinity?
Yes!

Take a circle. A circle has symmetry. Draw a line through it (blue lines). So long as that line
passes through the center, the distance to any point on the circle from the line will be the same
distance from the line to the directly opposite point on the circle (see dashed red lines). It
doesnt matter which point you select. Thus we say the image has vertical symmetry, and
according to definition, this symmetry is a form of infinity. There are an infinite number of
points you can do this with. Likewise, this symmetry holds no matter what angle the line takes
through the center of the circle. Thus the circle has rotational symmetry. Or in other words
there are an infinite number of lines you can do this with (blue lines).

In Conclusion
Our mathematical forms are correct, but our interpretation of them are erroneous. Feynman, a
famous physicist, when formulating QED,(Quantum ElectroDynamics) he ended up with an
infinity for the mass of the electron and various other values. He then erased the infinities and
plugged in the experimental values to make it work, something, by current mathematical
standards, is unacceptable. But, depending on his type of infinities, using this alternative
definition, might be justifiable.

What all this boils down to is that if you were to meet an alien from a more advanced
civilization and you told him the conventional definition of infinity, he might not know what
you were talking about.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to email me.

nb@nburda.net