this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2024
274 points (86.1% liked)

memes

10392 readers
3416 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bouga@lemm.ee 91 points 10 months ago (8 children)

I got tired of reading people saying that the infinite stack of hundreds is more money, so get this :

Both infinites are countable infinites, thus you can make a bijection between the 2 sets (this is literally the definition of same size sets). Now use the 1 dollar bills to make stacks of 100, you will have enough 1 bills to match the 100 bills with your 100 stacks of 1.

Both infinites are worth the same amount of money... Now paying anything with it, the 100 bills are probably more managable.

[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

You could also just divide your infinite stack of $1 bills into 100 infinite stacks of $1 bills. And, obviously, an infinite stack of $100 bills is equivalent to 100 infinite stacks of $1 bills.

(I know this is only slightly different than what you're getting at, which is that infinitely many stacks of 100 $1 bills is equivalent to an infinite stack of $100 bills)

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Now paying anything with it, the 100 bills are probably more managable.

I'd take the 1's just because almost everywhere I spend money has signs saying they don't take bills higher than $20.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PotatoKat@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

They can spend the same amount of money, but at any moment the one with 100s has more money. If you have 2 people each picking up 1 bill at the same rate at any singular moment the person picking up the 100s will have more money.

Since we're talking about a material object like dollar bills and not a concept like money we have to take into consideration it's utility and have to keep in mind the actual depositing and spending would be at any individual moment. The person with 100s would have a much easier/quicker time using the money therefore the 100s have more utility.

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We're definitely not talking about this like a material object at the same time, though. There's no way for a single person to store and access an infinite pile of bills.

You can spend a 100 dollar bill faster than a 1 dollar bill, sure, but both stacks would have the same money in the bank.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] WilloftheWest@feddit.uk 64 points 10 months ago (18 children)

This kind of thread is why I duck out of casual maths discussions as a maths PhD.

The two sets have the same value, that is the value of both sets is unbounded. The set of 100s approaches that value 100 times quicker than the set of singles. Completely intuitive to someone who’s taken first year undergraduate logic and calculus courses. Completely unintuitive to the lay person, and 100 lay people can come up with 100 different wrong conclusions based on incorrect rationalisations of the statement.

I’ve made an effort to just not participate since back when people were arguing Rick and Morty infinite universe bollocks. “Infinite universes means there are an infinite number of identical universes” really boils my blood.

It’s why I just say “algebra” when asked what I do. Even explaining my research (representation theory) to a tangentially related person, like a mathematical physicist, just ends in tedious non-discussion based on an incorrect framing of my work through their lens of understanding.

[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 34 points 10 months ago (2 children)

For what it's worth, people actually taking the time to explain helped me see the error in my reasoning.

[–] WilloftheWest@feddit.uk 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There’s no problem at all with not understanding something, and I’d go so far as to say it’s virtuous to seek understanding. I’m talking about a certain phenomenon that is overrepresented in STEM discussions, of untrained people (who’ve probably took some internet IQ test) thinking they can hash out the subject as a function of raw brainpower. The ceiling for “natural talent” alone is actually incredibly low in any technical subject.

There’s nothing wrong with meming on a subject you’re not familiar with, in fact it’s often really funny. It’s the armchair experts in the thread trying to “umm actually…” the memer when their “experience” is a YouTube video at best.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 8 points 10 months ago

It’s the armchair experts in the thread trying to “umm actually…” the memer when their “experience” is a YouTube video at best.

And don't you worry, that YouTuber with sketchy credibility and high production values has got an exclusive course just for you! Ugh. Lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

Yeah I sell cabinets and sometimes people are like “How much would a 24 inch cabinet cost?”

It could cost anything!

Then there are customers like “It’s the same if I just order them online right?” and I say “I wouldn’t recommend it. There’s a lot of little details to figure out and our systems can be error probe anyway…” then a month later I’m dealing with an angry customer who ordered their stuff online and is now mad at me for stuff going wrong.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 49 points 10 months ago (36 children)

They're both countibly infinite thus the same, no?

[–] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 27 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Theoretically, yes. Functionally, no. When you go to pay for something with your infinite bills, would you rather pay with N number of 100 dollar bills or get your wheelbarrow to pay with 100N one dollar bills? The pile may be infinite, but your ability to access it is finite. Ergo, the "denser" pile is worth more.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[–] foyrkopp@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Neither is bigger. Even "∞ x ∞" is not bigger than "∞". Classical mathematics sort of break down in the realm of infinity.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

It was probably mentioned in other comments, but some infinities are "larger" than others. But yes, the product of the two with the same cardinal number will have the same

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Yes, uncountably infinite sets are larger than countably infinite sets.

But these are both a countably infinite number of bills. They're the same infinity.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] BananaPeal@sh.itjust.works 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (8 children)

The reason infinity $100 bills is more valuable than infinity $1 bills: it takes less effort to utilize the money.

Let's say you want to buy a $275,000 Lamborghini. With $1 bills, you have to transport 275,000 notes to pay for it. That will take time and energy. With $100 bills, you have to transport 2750 notes. That's 100x fewer, resulting in a more valuable use of time and energy.

Even if you had a magical wallet that weighed the same as a standard wallet and always a had bills of that type available to pull out when you reach in. It's less energy to reach in a fewer number of times.

Let's toss in the perspective of the person receiving the money, too. Wouldn't you rather deal with 2750 notes over 275,000, if it meant the same monetary value? If you keep paying in ones, people will get annoyed. Being seen favorably has value.

Value is about more than money.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] tpyo@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

I considered deleting the post

Please don't! I've been out and about today and inadvertently left this post open. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the comments and it has been one of the most engaging posts I've seen on Lemmy

I appreciate all of the discussion it generated! Thank you <3

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Duh, of course it is because it's friggin hard to pay everything with 1 dollar bills, it will slowly eat away at your sanity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 21 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Infinity is not a number. Infinity is infinity.

People are confusing Infinity with lim x->Infinity. There's a huge difference.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What does "worth" even mean in this set up?

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I was just over here thinking this was about the practical utility of a $100 bill versus a wad of 100 $1 bills making an infinite quantity of the former preferable in comparison to (i.e. "worth more than") the latter...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is wrong. Having an infinite amount of something is like dividing by zero - you can't. What you can have is something approach an infinite amount, and when it does, you can compare the rate of approach to infinity, which is what matters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] orangatang@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

nah aah, infinity plus 1 is more, I win

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] CrayonRosary@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

No matter which denomination you choose, the infinite motel will always have room for another bill.

[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Seriously though, infinity is Infinity, it's not a number, it's infinity.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] pozbo@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If I had infinity $100 notes I could ask to break them into 50s and have 2x infinity $50 notes. It's called winning.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] esc27@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Value is a weird concept. Even if mathematically the two stacks should have the same value, odds are some people will consider the $100 bill stack worth more, and be willing to do more in exchange for it. That effectively does make it worth more.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 10 points 10 months ago

The moment you bring in the concept of actually using this money to pay for things, you have to consider stuff like how easy it is to carry around, and the 100s win. If your pile is infinite then you don't even need 1s at the strip club.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Approaching an infinite amount of steel vs. Approaching an infinite amount of feathers.

Which weighs more?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

An infinite number of bills would mean there's no space to move or breathe in, right? We'd all suffocate or be crushed under the pressure?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

This meme was made by thr guy on the left thinking he was thr guy on the right.

[–] nefonous@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I love how people here try to put this in practical terms like "when you need to pay something 100 is better". It's infinite. Infinite. The whole universe is covered in bills. We all would probably be dead by suffocation. It makes no sense to try to think about the practicality of it. Infinite is infinite, they are the same amount of money, that's all.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 8 points 10 months ago

For practical use it would be better to have an infinite supply rather than an infinite amount

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago (14 children)

Why are people upvoting this post? It's completely wrong. Infinity * something can't grow faster than infinity * something else.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] nodsocket@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (18 children)

Similar problem: which set is bigger, the set of all real numbers, or the set of all real numbers between 0 and 1?

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›