Ever since i used the term "Oneness of Infinity" to explain my apprehension of GOD on this forum, there have been zillions of snide remarks at every oppurtunity regarding the fact that the term is vague, empty, imprecise etc. . .

I would like to offer an explanation of this concept in its absoluteness and simplicity.

The abstract image of the term i had laid out was -


←← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [size=16pt][ONE][/size] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → → →

Which suggests that God exists. . . but -

Before starting out, let me be quick to accept the conundrum of the existence of God proffered by the more accurate -


← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [size=16pt][ZERO][/size]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

- Which suggests that God does not exist.

And so how do we move from nothing to something?

Sit back and relax. . .

Are you one of those that wants to prove the existence of your god using numbers?

Looking at the numeric sequences above, let us term the first Sequence CODE A and the second Sequence CODE Z.

Let us understand that Code Z in terms of abstract quantification supposes logically that the point from which all existent things commence is actually nothingness (Zero) - - -

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [ZERO][/b]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

                                                                          ^
                                                                          ^
This supposes that the [b]source of all things is - - - - -Zero, and therefore that God is nothingness, or put better: that God does not exist. . .

Killed myself?

Hang on. . .

Interesting. I will definitely have something to say here. Be right back.

haha. The Return of the Jedi Deepsight.

Deepsight is back with a vengeance. Oya o. we dey wait u

this will be sweet _{grabs a seat and orders for gulder ice-cream}
deep sight sir, listening.

_{sends iv to mazaje, tudor, jagunlabi, wirinet n co}

I'm not sure how Deepsight is going to formulate his argument. I'm thinking maybe by using the 'impossibility of an actual infinite regress' as an argument for the contigency (or finite beginning) of the universe,but i may be way off!

DeepSight enlighten us.

Right. Where were we. . .?

Yes. Code Z.

Deep Sight:


Let us understand that Code Z in terms of abstract quantification supposes logically that the point from which all existent things commence is actually nothingness (Zero) - - -

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [ZERO][/b]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

                                                                          ^
                                                                          ^
This supposes that the [b]source of all things is - - - - -Zero, and therefore that God is nothingness, or put better: that God does not

Following from the above, and the inference that the source of all things is ZERO, the natural question to ask is – “What is zero? What does it represent?”

Let’s look at these premises –

   Premise 1: Zero is nothingness

   Premise 2: Nothingness, being EMPTY by definition, cannot be said to have a limit.

   Premise 3: Nothingness is therefore infinite.

   Premise 4: Infinity connotes Eternity

   Premise 5: Eternity connotes Time to infinity

   Premise 6: Time therefore exists as inseparable factor of Zero.

First step Conclusion: Zero is in fact not really nothing: as it is imbued with time, infinity, and thus eternity.

We have come full circle. . . steady on. . .

Still coming. . .

Thus the most accurate code should look like -

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [size=16pt][INFINITY][/size]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

And with the obvious fact that infinity remains intrinsic to ZERO, just as surely as it spawns outwards towards and endless infinity as shown above -

THEN,  a complete and rounded understanding is -

   ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [size=16pt][INFINITY][/size]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

Which pans out as -

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ←  ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ←  ← ← ←        [INFINITY]        → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → →

Thus the source is infinite (or eternal) and its manifestations (expansions) are infinite as well.

Steady on. . .

Still coming. . .

Let me slow down at this point. Let us dwell on that which is deduced so far from the codes. . .

Deep Sight:


← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← [INFINITY] → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → →

Thus the source is infinite (or eternal) and its manifestations (expansions) are infinite as well.

I am going to adduce extensive explanations in prose: but for deductive purposes let us stop here and reflect on the last sentence in the quote above. There is hardly any need to add any other attribute to the source, other than that which is empirical: that it is eternal.

Neverthless we shall smuggle in only ONE more certain attribute, and leave the construct at that.

Still coming. . .

Deep Sight:

Let me slow down at this point. Let us dwell on that which is deduced so far from the codes. . .

I am going to adduce extensive explanations in prose: but for deductive purposes let us stop here and reflect on the last sentence in the quote above. There is hardly any need to add any other attribute to the source, other than that which is empirical: that it is eternal.

Neverthless we shall smuggle in only ONE more certain attribute, and leave the construct at that.

Still coming. . .

I am particularly intrested in that part. Please continue . . .

JeSoul:

I am particularly intrested in that part. Please continue . . .

oh boy, let the games begin

Before we get to the explanation in prose form, let us note the factor or logic, which is the other attribute i said i would introduce.

This -

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

- With the progressive expansion indicated in it demostrates -

 Premise 1 - Progression, Numerics and Mathematics

 Premise 2 - Infinitely continuing order or sequences

Second Initial Conclusion: The source (zero/infinity) posesses an infinite sequential layout.

Ordered Sequences connote compound intelligence embedded in the infinity. . .

Hold your breath. . .

Still coming. . .

And let us remember that this shown and explained above already -

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← [INFINITY] → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → →

Is ONE infinity only . . .

Relax. . .

. . >sigh<

Amico mio. . I am around. That your inifinity prose will explode into a black hole when I begin.

But just continue - you seem to be going somewhere with it all, and please be sure those grabbing front seats will get value's worth for their tickets.

Deep Sight:


←← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [size=16pt][ONE][/size] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → → →

I think you are murdering mathematics here.
I don't understand how counting in either direction:
0-> 1-> 2-> 3-> 4-> 5-> 6-> 7-> 8-> 9. . .followed by 0?(Not 10?) . . .leads to infinity Come on.
You can never arrive at infinity whether you start counting at one or at googolplex.

aletheia:

I think you are murdering mathematics here.
I don't understand how counting in either direction:
0-> 1-> 2-> 3-> 4-> 5-> 6-> 7-> 8-> 9. . .followed by 0?(Not 10?) . . .leads to infinity Come on.
You can never arrive at infinity whether you start counting at one or at googolplex.

I don't think Deep Sight was that gullible. Indeed, he already moved past that simplistic assumption when he posted this earlier:

Deep Sight:

Before starting out, let me be quick to accept the conundrum of the existence of God proffered by the more accurate -

← ← ← ← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [ZERO]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → →

. . and:

Deep Sight:

Thus the most accurate code should look like -

← ← ← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → →

Sure, the '0' at the end of either direction of the 9s are presumptive and wrong. But he's said to propose his explanations in prose. . . in which case, I wonder how he's handled the mathematical progression in such a prose that he proposes. However, we should not be in such a haste . . he might surprise us.

Deep Sight, there are more mathematicians in NL than I could count. I would not have been surprised at the raised eyebrows from various observers, considering that you had an interesting kickoff . . until this:

Deep Sight:

- With the progressive expansion indicated in it demostrates -

  Premise 1 - Progression, Numerics and Mathematics

  Premise 2 - Infinitely continuing order or sequences

Second Initial Conclusion: The source (zero/infinity) posesses an infinite sequential layout.

I just don't know where to start; but did you realise that even in prose, the weight of your statements would raise voices in this thread? I mean, take premise 2 for instance: did you consider that each and every digit in your numerals could quite possibly have a 'sequence' as well in context of 'infinite continuity order'? That being the case, what you might just have opened up is quite another thing entirely. .  which is that there is not just "ONE infinity only", but an infinite number of infinities.

The 'infinite number of infinities' (or 'infinite infinities', which I would pun [∞n]) would tend to pantheistic innuendos (for want of an apt descriptive); but the more interesting thing is that the NL mathematicians could quite easily show the basis for this [∞n] and bring you round what I'm trying to say.

However, I think if you just left out the allusions to numerals and mathematics and present your case for a 'oneness of infinity', you might more easily progress this thread. But the catch22 is that it would seem an insurmountable task to progress on this while leaving out the mathematics at the foundation of it all. So, how do we help?

Maybe its me,but i still don't see how all this counts as an argument for God's existence.

Numbers and mathematics are abstract objects,and abstract objects do not have causal powers,that is they do not stand in Causal Relations or simply put,numbers don't cause anything.

Therefore if God is Infinity or any other number abstraction,then he would not have been able to create or do anything for that matter.

I just don't see how we can equate God,who is a not simply an abstraction,to numbers which are abstractions.

haha. I'm already lost.

Abeg make una break am down to lay man language. Abi is this God only for Geniuses?

viaro:

I don't think Deep Sight was that gullible. Indeed, he already moved past that simplistic assumption when he posted this earlier:. . and:
Sure, the '0' at the end of either direction of the 9s are presumptive and wrong. But he's said to propose his explanations in prose. . . in which case, I wonder how he's handled the mathematical progression in such a prose that he proposes. However, we should not be in such a haste . . he might surprise us.

Thanks but. . .no matter how he presents it; his basic premise is mathematically and philosophically flawed

Deep Sight:


← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [ZERO][/b]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

Deep Sight:

←← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [size=16pt][b][ONE][/size] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → → →

Deep Sight:


← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [size=16pt][INFINITY][/size]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

Looking at Deep Sight''s series: you can see that he treats infinity as being equivalent to 0 or 1. But by definition you can never start at infinity or arrive at infinity.
Is there a number that is equal to infinity+1?

All hail the oneness of infinity. . .

Yeah Alaeth you are right.Deepsight seems to be treating Infinity as though it is a number which can be arrived at or started at.

We can only tend towards infinity,but never arrive at it.We can't arrive at infinity through succesive addition or subtraction.

Krayola:

haha. I'm already lost.

Abeg make una break am down to lay man language. Abi is this God only for Geniuses?

bros even someone with a PHD in quantum mechanics would look twice at this thread.

see what I mean? The mathematicians and logicians are  beginning to convene.

easylogic:

Maybe its me,but i still don't see how all this counts as an argument for God's existence.

I wondered about that as well and perhaps was too forward to note the same thing in another thread.

_________________________

Krayola:

Abeg make una break am down to lay man language. Abi is this God only for Geniuses?

This is not even scratching the surface of rocket science.

__________________________

aletheia:

Thanks but. . .no matter how he presents it; his basic premise is mathematically and philosophically flawed

Quite true; and. .

Looking at Deep Sight''s series: you can see that he treats infinity as being equivalent to 0 or 1. But by definition you can never start at infinity or arrive at infinity.

It really all depends. We could start at a certain point within an identity of infinity - any infinity; but we could not nail that very point the 'start' of any infinity, which is why there's so much sense in this line of yours:

Is there a number that is equal to infinity+1?

I don't know. Who knows whether there is a mathematician out there who is lurking around to demystify this particular 'ME' ([b]m[/b]athematical [b]e[/b]mbarrassment). Personally, I think the 'inifinity' identity is one of the 'ME's that falls into what is commonly called transcedental numbers (ie., a number that is not algebraic and is not a solution of a non-constant polynomial . .  blah-blah).

Crystal me[b]th[/b] is bad for the heal[b]th[/b]

see rhyme na you wan try

Let me start by saying one of the most intriguing equations I have ever seen is [size=13pt]e^iπ + 1 = 0[/size]. It's so cute! LOL. Lumping together the five (possibly) most esoteric and omnipresent symbols in Maths (e, i, pi, 1 and 0), if you look closely at that divine expression you will see the utmost paradise there: Shangri-La!  (but you need to look really closely like I have, and I guess I should try not to explain it too much to you guys joo, you won't understand me).   

Okay, enough jokes. Down to business. 

Since the mathematical principles we will employ assume that numbers are not disorderly and out of wack, but they have ordered, relative sizes (magnitudes) with respect to one another; it appears mathematically evident that there must be a source that patterned the orderliness and produced the relative concept of sizes in the numbers. So I will start by assuming that there is a Source, and that Source is the one DeepSight is attempting to apprehend as the Oneness of Infinity. We will then try to see if an understanding of that Oneness of Infinity helps throw any light on the said Source, and with respect to DeepSight's opinions, if in fact the Oneness of Infinity can be apprehended in that manner of approach that he thus attempts. 

Mathematically speaking, and for the sake of ease, I will hitherto refer to the Oneness of Infinity (the Source) expressed in DeepSight's apprehension of God, as ∞_∞. Now, let us carefully consider DeepSight's ideas. I didn't read any of this anywhere, and neither have I published any theses  on the ideas, so feel free to fault them if my reasoning is fallacious.

I followed Viaro's link above and saw this post by Pastor AIO, and that's where I want to start from 
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343779.0.html#msg4815562

(infinity/infinitely small)  . . . ,1/7, 1/6, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2,1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,  . . . . (infinity/infinitely large)

and https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-343779.0.html#msg4818646

That's the way it was done back in the day.  Long before those pesky Hindu philosophers invented the concept of Zero. 

Yes, Pastor AIO, you are kinda right in saying the numbers start from infinitely small to infinitely large, but that's just the same as saying a spectrum leading from infinitely negative number to an infinitely positive number, i think, and I want to prove my rationale below. Stay with me.

In the ancient numerical system, when we say a number is large, we are considering the fact that it is made up of multiple "1" units: unity in multiple places. But when a number is really small, then it is such that multiple units of THAT number will be required to form a "1". i.e. 5,000,000 is made of 5 million observed ones, but 50 million parts of 1/50,000,000 are required to add up and give 1 (50 million REQUIRED parts). So the ancient number system revolved around the identity element "1", and all other numbers were either OBSERVED multiples ( > 1), or REQUIRED sub-multiples (< 1) of 1. In this case, the observed multiples were "building upon" 1, so they were positive, while the required sub-multiples (or fractional factors?) were negative to 1 because they were obtained after "tearing apart" 1, and were thus individually deficient.

But then the Hindus came along with a new identity element that didn't work with multiples (i.e. frequency of occurrences), but worked with distances. So, they established a reference point, called it zero, and then all other numbers were considered POSITIVE or NEGATIVE with respect to their distance from zero. Those that got bigger by being independent of zero (getting farther away from zero) were positive because they had considerable influence regardless of their distance from the reference point. Those that got smaller due to their independence were negative because their influence reduced as they moved father from zero, and whenever they moved closer they had more influence with zero. They were sort of dependent on zero to have a sort of relevance, so they were negative, just like the sub-fractions of 1 had to bee very many before they had any relevance. Thus, I think the two ordered systems are equivalent, it just depends on who's the gatekeeper: 0 or 1? (Having toyed with 2 of the 5 members of that divine equation leading to Shangri-la, let me move ahead  )

So, going by the modern zero-identity-element, I will start by saying that DeepSight seems to have neglected the fact there is not only one infinity, but its at both ends of the continuum, equally counterbalancing one another in magnitude.

One can never reach ∞ on either side of the numerical scale. One can only tend in that direction, as one's magnitude of relevance to that ∞ increases. e.g. a trillion rather tends towards +∞, and so, since a trillion is larger than, say, 100, we can say a trillion is more relevant to +∞ than 100 is. i.e. a trillion has more numerical properties in semblance of +∞, than 100 does, so it is more relevant in understanding +∞ than 100 is.

For the reason above, one may not totally rationalize or explain away DeepSight's ∞_∞, since it/he/she/ is "unapproachable", but one may examine some of ∞_∞'s characteristics by carefully considering the hypotheses he has offered using large numbers in the stead of ∞, as large as one can surmise, but never forgetting that we are considering an unapproachable infinitum.

I think a major assumption, and fallacy, in DeepSight's argument is that whatever interactions occur within the entire number line stretching between the infinities (be it infinitely small to infinitely large, or infinitely negative to infinitely positive, please be my guest) are adequately weighted in the (either) infinities. It appears that DeepSight assumes that the numbers are only acting, to a relatively good or relatively poor extent, as descriptors of the (either) infinities. i.e. when you continuously combine two or more numbers in a vector space, the result will lie in that contained spectrum between ∞ and -∞, or, similarly, the phenomenon of the source, the ∞_∞ can be established in the domain that also established ∞. This is not so, and I will return to this point presently.

I am continuing this gist in the next post.

Now searching for ∞_∞, please put on your searchlights   

DeepSight has indicated that the mathematical analogy of ∞_∞ is to be found in the centre of the number sequences, and after checking out possibilities of ∞_∞ being represented as 0, then 1, he finally fixed it as ∞.

While we seek the value of ∞_∞, let us sit on the fence and look at the number line from an unbiased view. But I will be biased towards the positive/negative-to-zero number value concept rather than the ancient identity-element-1 concept though. 

I must first confess that I think, to be fair to these numbers, there cannot be only one point of reference, be it zero or 1. I think there are many points of reference in each direction, linking to one another like threads on a 3D ball (as opposed to arcs on a 2D circle). So, just as there is a datum at zero, there are datum lines at other numbers too. I will come to that.

Let's look at the number line from our further biased (in view of a possible multiplicity of dimensions) zero-point of reference.

-∞,, ,-10^{10^10}, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,, ,10^{10^10},, ∞

and, looking from the other angle, +ve to -ve,

∞,, ,10^{10^10}, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5,, ,-10^{10^10}, -∞

Here, we have an unknown quantity, it's called ∞ (infinity), and we are assuming that there is no number larger than it (or smaller than -∞, so to speak). This unknown quantity is the solution to itself, it is self-aware and cannot be defined except by itself, and it is in fact the reason why 1/0 is considered to be ∞ (recall my previous argument about the ancient number system? so it would take infinite zeroes to make a 1, as far as the old system goes  ).

And here's my first red herring.  How sure is anyone that ∞ exists on the number line? Personally I don't think it does, because then ∞ + 1 would exist as well, it's just a step further away from zero, however inconsequential that step is. More on that later (not to worry, all these "more on that"s point to the same point I will soon make). ∞ reminds me of its friend that, unfortunately, was caught in the act by a mathematical-engineer, Heron of Alexandria, in the 1st century while befuddling his head with the truncates of some solid composites. More on that very soon.

For the sake of argument, let us leave ∞ on that number line.

When we combine the two number lines outlined in red, we get interesting results:
Upon addition, everything becomes zero. Each component wipes out the other. Talk about total annihilation! All default to zero.
Upon subtraction, every component becomes doubled, except for three components: ∞, -∞ and 0.
[s]Upon multiplication term-by-term, once again, only three components are left unchanged: ∞, -∞ and 0.
Upon division term by term, all receive a unity magnitude (i.e. -1), except zero, which becomes a singularity: undefined.[/s]

So, if ∞_∞ exists somewhere, anywhere, on that line, be it 0 or 1 or ∞ or something, then being the source, it has considerable influence over the entire number line. (Sorry, I have switched to it, I couldn't keep up with typing he/she/it/ )

On that number line, every other number, spanning in either direction, derives from the source by progressive additions or subtractions in tiny quanta, in leaps, in bounds. The relationship of the sourced numbers with the source ∞_∞ is essentially one of addition and subtraction, as offshoots of the source. As such, I assume it will not self-destruct by the same simple rules of addition and subtraction by which it generated the other numbers. Unless of course, ∞_∞ is the one number that did not self-destruct. i.e. zero.

So unless zero is the ∞_∞ that is the source from which all derives, we must be forced to say that the transcedental ∞_∞ will eventually crush itself and all its creation. And then all will go to waste as it it never existed. Or maybe we can say it is not transcendental, and cannot have the influence over the "creation" to enable operating on the future from the past? Maybe that may not be okay with a definition of ∞_∞ as representing a deity, so let us assume that ∞_∞ is represented fully by zero.

If DeepSight tries to proselytize this mystery to old timers, it will be a little funny to them, because there was never any zero in the ancient numeric system and they were doing fine, so how can you tell them that the singularity, the source of all, is likened to the number-line zero? What they had was one. And what made ONE unique was that it was individual, and unquestionably so 

The ancient number system worked with division and multiplication with respect to 1. So, let's outline the number system below
, (1/  ↨), , , 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ,  (↨),
where once again, we assume that  ↨ is a large number that is numerically workable in this number system. ↨ would be a really large number, either way  (and we assume again that ∞_∞ exists on that plane). ↨ in its largeness will help us to unravel the mystery-that-is ∞_∞ in this number system.

If the ∞_∞ is transcendental and exists on the ancient number line, then definitely all the fractions and whole numbers are derivative of it, since ∞_∞ is the source. Multiply throughout the number line by ↨, and we obtain

, 1,, ,↨,, ↨,

since ↨/5, ↨/4, ↨/3, ↨/2, ↨, 2↨, 3↨, 4↨, 5↨ all the way to ↨ are all equal to ↨. Someone may be quick to observe that this is wrong, that one cannot multiply throughout a sequence of numbers using infinity, but this is not infinity, its just a really big number (infinity is a concept that exists on the positive-negative-ordered-around-zero number system). In this number system, there is no "final large number" idea. They keep accumulating 1s to get bigger, or they keep tearing themselves up in tiny pieces as splinters of 1.

Let us divide by ↨ as well and see, similarly

, (1 / ↨) , , (1/ ↨), 1,

Thus, unless ∞_∞ is ↨ or (1 / ↨), it gets annihilated by its own creation, using the same rules of multiplication and division that define size and relevance, and make the numbers derive from the source in varying magnitudes 
But ∞_∞ cannot be 1 / ↨ because in this number system, it means it has been, by continuous division, derived from 1. This can't be so, since ∞_∞ is the source. ∞_∞ may be ↨, however, but I will not be hasty to say so. This is because 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are each ↨ in their own rights, with respect to the amounts of  1 that they have accumulated. Since  ↨ is not bounded, what will be the supremum of this mystery?

[size=13pt]Will the real  ↨ please stand up?[/size] (come to think of it, it kinda looks like its standing up, see it here:  [size=18pt]↨[/size])

And for those that doubt my last observation, see for yourself: if you take the ancient number line back to back like we did for the modern one i.e. smaller to larger, then larger to smaller, and multiply them all out, they ALL give ones since each cancels out the other. No singularity. So is the ∞_∞ dead or what? 

And finally, in a third post, I bring my views to a conclusion. (@Tudor: LOL sorry those effective communication books you recommended never helped me. I still enjoy my long posts.  )

There are only two unknowns (so far) in maths, who are self-aware, and they are the only way of defining themselves . That's ∞ and his pally known as i (the guy who was caught in the act by a mathematical-engineer, Heron of Alexandria, in the 1st century while befuddling his head with the truncates of some solid composites), a really tough guy called "imaginary" by Rene Descartes . It was imaginary just because it didn't fit what his head could process). And then, Leonhard Euler named it later, and thus began the wails of lazy math students.

i and ∞ have no known values, but they have the characteristics of: i = squareroot (-1) and ∞ = limit x->0 (1/x) [i.e. how big a number gets when you get close enough to zero, but never really arrive there, and get yourself divided by one. In the ancient math line, ∞ would mean the number of zeros you need to pack together before you can get a one. You go tey! LOL]

I sincerely believe that mathematics cannot help DeepSight prove whatever he has set out to do here, because human math is terribly flawed, essentially. See the complex plane for instance, the domain of my friend i. Rene Descartes did a lot of work on the number line, and a conclusion he quickly came to was that -ve times -ve is +ve and +ve times +ve is +ve, so in essence if you let any number square itself, it will always be positive, no matter what the number is. Gladly, he sat down and started tweaking his moustache and twiddling his fingers. Then he saw incontrovertible evidence and he had to dismiss the mischevious number that squares to give a negative number, as "imaginary". Kinda reminds me of many atheists on Nairaland

Then Leonhard Euler came on scene, and introduced calculations involving the number i. Suddenly, a vista of opportunities opened, and calculus and trigonometry rejoiced to see the unforeseen i's age. (Ice Age?)

If these men had not done what they did, wouldn't we still be screaming today about how there were no complex numbers? The same way it was once thought that there were no irrational numbers? Sincerely, I believe there are many more planes out there in the field of math. You may be working with their derivatives everyday the same way men had worked with -1 (the father-square of i) for years and never once imagined that there was a number lurking in its loins, that would make math simpler for the addicts and more annoying for the non-enthusiasts That ignored, puny -1, was the progenitor of the entire complex math field. Now, we are searching for the progenitor, the ancestor, of the number line? It's somewhere out there, but not on the same line, be it at infinity or at the oneness of infinity.

So, who knows, maybe sometime in the future there will be a plane along which we will discover ∞_∞ if it exists, but the important thing is that its influence can be felt on the number line: the numbers are frolicking and having a good time. Look around, join the party!

For the record, whoever's reading this, Im a Christian!

ancel:

Interesting. I will definitely have something to say here. Be right back.

Ancel enters the thread and sees posts by DeepSight, and the united dissenting responses by Krayola, Easylogic, Viaro, Aletheia, Bawomolo and Mavenb0x and he hides under Ilosiwaju's seat, peeping out to wink at the laughing JeSoul. Asks her, [i]"Hey sis, where's the icon for eating your words? I need to eat the promise that I'd be back to post. O, forget it, this in itself is a post."  . Ancel whispers to the smirking Mazaje, Toneyb and Chrisbenogor, "This thread doesn't seem to be going very nice for the OP".

Maven,such a marvelous write up!

@easylogic: Thanks! At first I was scared that many people won't find any sense in my verbose talk, as often happens !!

@ancel: Troublemaker! LOL