I considered deleting the post, but this seems more cowardly than just admitting I was wrong. But TIL something!

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It might give use different growth rate but Infinity is infinite, it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity. Infinity is the range of all the numbers ever, you can’t increase that set of numbers that is already infinite.

    • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      but in this case we are comparing the growth rate of two functions

      oh, you mean like taking the ratio of the derivatives of two functions?

      it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity

      but that’s not the scenario. The question is whether $100x is more valuable than $1x as x goes to infinity. The number of bills is infinite (and you are correct that adding one more bill is still infinity bills), but the value of the money is a larger $infinity if you have $100 bills instead of $1 bills.

      Edit: just for clarity, the original comment i replied to said

      Lhopital’s rule doesn’t fucking apply when it comes to infinity. Why are so many people in this thread using lhopital’s rule. Yes, it gives us the limit as x approaches infinity but in this case we are comparing the growth rate of two functions that are trying to make infinity go faster, this is not possible. Infinity is infinite, it’s like the elementary school playground argument saying “infinity + 1” there is no “infinity + 1”, it’s just infinity. Infinity is the range of all the numbers ever, you can’t increase that set of numbers that is already infinite.