From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 Seems to be Propaganda? 1.1 Merge 1.2 Useless section 1.3 Error 1.4 Innacurate page? 1.5 The problem with this article

[edit] Seems to be Propaganda?

I don't think I care much for this book. Consider that it, in the introduction, must make an exception for transfinite numbers. How useful is something that has to list out the different types of number-types infinity isn't? In reality, infinity has sort of a dual nature, depending on the use. In the extended real number line, infinity is unarguably an element. Is it a number? I would say yes. In cardinal arithmetic, different sizes of infinity are even used. In the case of limits, the infinity-as-an-unending-process infinity is often used.

I'd say a better name would be "Infinity is not a number in the classical sense" but then we'd have to define what a number is in the classical sense, so I'll go ahead and do that, proposing a new title of "Infinity is not a finite number". That ought to do. Mo Anabre 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

This book should become an appendix in the Calculus book.

[edit] Useless section

i think that the section "Reinterpret formulas that use " is useless as it's complicate simple things "i.e. limits". it's enough to say the definition of limit "as x approach something f(x) approaching something else" and let the reader conclude the results with infinity as he already know it from the previous sections. That would be easier that rotating around a really simple point. 3D Vector (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Error

The following (unless i'm too tired to realize im wrong) is incorrect:

However:

and

But:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.20.246.127 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 26 April 2008.

Yes (except for the last where you clearly meant ). This was actually fixed by User:Mo Anabre in Nov. 2007 and then un-fixed later. I've re-fixed it. --Mrwojo (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Innacurate page?

I believe this page fails at describing infinity. It can mean two things. The first is the concept on infinity, as in, an unsurpassably high number. That kind of infinity is not a number, since + 1 will still be an unsurpassably high number, and, therefore, equals

The other kind of infinity is that of a number. A number which is the result of R*/0 . It is then taken as a number in the Real projective line, and + 1 does not equal (simply because no number added to 1 equals itself). Remember that, as a number, Also, calculations such as are true, just like 0 + 0 = 0.

I would mark this page for innacuracy, but I've no idea of how to do that.

200.158.99.64 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the problems with this page exist because it was created for a fairly narrow purpose in Calculus/Infinite Limits, which distinguishes and for example. I think a broader, Calculus/Infinity page would be an appropriate step towards making this right. --Mrwojo (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The problem with this article

I believe that the flaw in this article is stating "infinity is not a number". Infinity can both be a number (and therefore infinity + 1 will not equal infinity, which gives it algebraic properties and extinguishes the paradox), and infinity can be a concept. In calculus, you indeed only deal with a tendency to infinity, and that tendency can be both positive or negative. But when dealing with many algebraic conjectures, infinity equals negative infinity (as there is no positive or negative zero), and still retains algebraic property.

My suggestion - merge this into the calculus wikibook. It does not apply to other areas of mathematics.

Just wanted to contribute.