### Infinity #1

One ide of infinity the most human being would have actually encountered in a math class  is the infinity the limits. Through limits, we can try to recognize 2∞ together follows: The infinity prize is provided twice here: an initial time to represent “as x grows”, and a second to time to stand for “2x eventually permanently exceeds any particular bound”.

You are watching: 2 to the power of infinity

If we usage the notation a little bit loosely, we could “simplify” the limit above as follows: This would suggest that the answer to the inquiry in the location is “No”, yet as will certainly be apparent shortly, making use of infinity notation loosely is not a great idea.

### Infinity #2

In enhancement to limits, over there is an additional place in math where infinity is important: in set theory.

Set theory recognizes infinities of multiple “sizes”, the the smallest of i m sorry is the collection of optimistic integers: 1, 2, 3, … . A set whose dimension is same to the dimension of positive integer collection is dubbed countably infinite.

“Countable infinity add to one” If we include another aspect (say 0) to the set of confident integers, is the new set any type of larger? To check out that it can not be larger, you can look at the trouble differently: in set 0, 1, 2, … each element is merely smaller by one, compared to the set 1, 2, 3, … . So, also though we added an facet to the unlimited set, we really just “relabeled” the aspects by decrementing every value. “Two time countable infinity” Now, let’s “double” the set of confident integers by including values 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, … The new set can seem larger, since it includes an infinite number of brand-new values. But again, you deserve to say that the sets space the same size, simply each facet is half the size: “Countable infinity squared” to “square” countable infinity, us can form a collection that will certainly contain every integer pairs, such as <1,1>, <1,2>, <2,2> and also so on. Through pairing increase every integer through every integer, us are efficiently squaring the dimension of the creature set.Can bag of integers also be basically simply relabeled with integers? Yes, lock can, and also so the set of integer bag is no bigger than the set of integers. The diagram below shows exactly how integer pairs can be “relabeled” with simple integers (e.g., pair <2,2> is labeled as 5): “Two come the power of countable infinity” The set of integers contains a countable infinity of elements, and so the collection of every integer subsets should – loosely speaking – contain two come the strength of countable infinity elements. So, is the variety of integer subsets equal to the variety of integers? It transforms out the the “relabeling” trick we provided in the an initial three examples does not job-related here, and also so it appears that there are more integer subsets 보다 there room integers. Let’s look in ~ the fourth instance in more detail to recognize why the is so fundamentally various from the first three. You can think of an essence subset as a binary number through an boundless sequence the digits: i-th number is 1 if i is consisted of in the subset and also 0 if i is excluded. So, a typical integer subset is a succession of ones and zeros going forever and ever, through no pattern emerging.

And currently we are obtaining to the vital difference. Every integer, half-integer, or integer pair have the right to be explained using a finite number of bits. That’s why we deserve to squint at the set of essence pairs and see that it really is simply a collection of integers. Each integer pair can be easily converted come an integer and back.

However, an creature subset is an infinite succession of bits. It is difficult to describe a general scheme because that converting an boundless sequence of bits right into a limited sequence without details loss. The is why the is difficult to squint at the collection of creature subsets and also argue the it really is just a collection of integers.

The diagram listed below shows examples of unlimited sets of three different sizes: So, in collection theory, there room multiple infinities. The smallest infinity is the “countable” infinity, 0, the matches the variety of integers. A bigger infinity is 1 the matches the variety of real number or creature subsets. And there are also larger and larger infinite sets.

Since there are an ext integer subsets than there room integers, it must not be surprising the the mathematical formula below holds (you can uncover the formula in the Wikipedia short article on continuous Hypothesis): And since 0 denotes infinity (the the smallest kind), it appears that it would not be much of a big to compose this: … and now it seems that the answer come the concern from the title should be “Yes”.

So, is the true the that 2∞ > ∞? The answer depends on which id of infinity us use. The infinity of borders has no size concept, and the formula would be false. The infinity of collection theory does have a dimension concept and the formula would be kind of true.

Technically, explain 2∞ > ∞ is neither true nor false. As result of the pass out notation, it is impossible to call which principle of infinity is gift used, and consequently which rules apply.

### Who cares?

OK… however why would anyone care that there room two different notions the infinity? the is straightforward to acquire the impression the the conversation is simply an pundit exercise through no useful implications.

On the contrary, raufdercouch.netus expertise of the two kinds that infinity has been really important. After ~ properly knowledge the very first kind that infinity, Isaac Newton to be able to build calculus, adhered to by the concept of gravity. And, the second kind that infinity to be a pre-requisite because that Alan Turing to specify computability (see my post on Numbers that cannot be computed) and also Kurt Gödel to prove Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.

See more: 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

So, knowledge both type of infinity has actually lead to crucial insights and practical advancements.