Is it mathematically wrong to say “infinite number”?












3














I often hear the phrase "an infinite number of..." in mathematics. Is this phrase mathematically ungrammatical, since infinity is not a "number"?



I'm sure some people will say that whether this phrase is right or wrong is a matter of opinion or taste, or that if people are saying it and know what it means, then who's to say it's wrong. Fine. I'm just curious about how most mathematicians feel about it. Could it lead to conceptual pitfalls? Or should the most modern and broad notion of "number" include "infinity" as a member?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 5




    "Infinitely many..." is more idiomatic.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    58 mins ago








  • 2




    When people say that infinite is not a number, it simply means that there is no way to reconcile the naive notion of 'positive/negative infinity' and the algebraic rules over the real numbers. In other words, for other purposes one can actually come up with rigorous theories dealing with infinities. Infinite cardinals are quintessential examples.
    – Sangchul Lee
    42 mins ago


















3














I often hear the phrase "an infinite number of..." in mathematics. Is this phrase mathematically ungrammatical, since infinity is not a "number"?



I'm sure some people will say that whether this phrase is right or wrong is a matter of opinion or taste, or that if people are saying it and know what it means, then who's to say it's wrong. Fine. I'm just curious about how most mathematicians feel about it. Could it lead to conceptual pitfalls? Or should the most modern and broad notion of "number" include "infinity" as a member?










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 5




    "Infinitely many..." is more idiomatic.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    58 mins ago








  • 2




    When people say that infinite is not a number, it simply means that there is no way to reconcile the naive notion of 'positive/negative infinity' and the algebraic rules over the real numbers. In other words, for other purposes one can actually come up with rigorous theories dealing with infinities. Infinite cardinals are quintessential examples.
    – Sangchul Lee
    42 mins ago
















3












3








3







I often hear the phrase "an infinite number of..." in mathematics. Is this phrase mathematically ungrammatical, since infinity is not a "number"?



I'm sure some people will say that whether this phrase is right or wrong is a matter of opinion or taste, or that if people are saying it and know what it means, then who's to say it's wrong. Fine. I'm just curious about how most mathematicians feel about it. Could it lead to conceptual pitfalls? Or should the most modern and broad notion of "number" include "infinity" as a member?










share|cite|improve this question













I often hear the phrase "an infinite number of..." in mathematics. Is this phrase mathematically ungrammatical, since infinity is not a "number"?



I'm sure some people will say that whether this phrase is right or wrong is a matter of opinion or taste, or that if people are saying it and know what it means, then who's to say it's wrong. Fine. I'm just curious about how most mathematicians feel about it. Could it lead to conceptual pitfalls? Or should the most modern and broad notion of "number" include "infinity" as a member?







terminology






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 1 hour ago









WillG

44938




44938








  • 5




    "Infinitely many..." is more idiomatic.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    58 mins ago








  • 2




    When people say that infinite is not a number, it simply means that there is no way to reconcile the naive notion of 'positive/negative infinity' and the algebraic rules over the real numbers. In other words, for other purposes one can actually come up with rigorous theories dealing with infinities. Infinite cardinals are quintessential examples.
    – Sangchul Lee
    42 mins ago
















  • 5




    "Infinitely many..." is more idiomatic.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    58 mins ago








  • 2




    When people say that infinite is not a number, it simply means that there is no way to reconcile the naive notion of 'positive/negative infinity' and the algebraic rules over the real numbers. In other words, for other purposes one can actually come up with rigorous theories dealing with infinities. Infinite cardinals are quintessential examples.
    – Sangchul Lee
    42 mins ago










5




5




"Infinitely many..." is more idiomatic.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
58 mins ago






"Infinitely many..." is more idiomatic.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
58 mins ago






2




2




When people say that infinite is not a number, it simply means that there is no way to reconcile the naive notion of 'positive/negative infinity' and the algebraic rules over the real numbers. In other words, for other purposes one can actually come up with rigorous theories dealing with infinities. Infinite cardinals are quintessential examples.
– Sangchul Lee
42 mins ago






When people say that infinite is not a number, it simply means that there is no way to reconcile the naive notion of 'positive/negative infinity' and the algebraic rules over the real numbers. In other words, for other purposes one can actually come up with rigorous theories dealing with infinities. Infinite cardinals are quintessential examples.
– Sangchul Lee
42 mins ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















8














Infinity is not a number, as you said. However, it is a cardinality. For example, the cardinality of the naturals is $aleph_0$ and the cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ , basically, different sizes of infinity. Thus, although infinity cannot be considered a number, it can be used as a measure of size. Hence, it is mathematically and grammatically correct to use phrases such as 'infinitely many', or 'an infinite number of '.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • The cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ assuming the continuum hypothesis, but it could be much bigger in $mathsf{ZFC}$!
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    15 mins ago



















0














I think "an infinite number of _____" is a fine use but here's a maybe far fetched potential conceptual pitfall.



There is an infinite number of ways to answer the posed question. In fact (in some sense, because I am limited to using symbols from a finite alphabet), there is $aleph_0$. That is, there is countably many different answers one could type up.



And if you sequence the rational numbers $q_1,q_2,dots $ then this sequence has an infinite number of subsequential limit points. In fact, there are continuum such limit points.



A potential pitfall would be to think that these are same. Just because there is an infinite number of ways of doing $X$ and infinite number of ways of doing $Y$ doesn't mean there is the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$.



Anyway: I think this pitfall is somewhat far fetched but it's definitely worth keeping in mind that the rules that obvious to us when dealing with number do not apply to infinities.



"If there $z$ ways of doing $X$ and there $z$ ways of doing $Y$ then there are the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$. Is a perfectly valid conclusion when we are working with $z=17$... but not when $z$ is infinite.






share|cite





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053635%2fis-it-mathematically-wrong-to-say-infinite-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    8














    Infinity is not a number, as you said. However, it is a cardinality. For example, the cardinality of the naturals is $aleph_0$ and the cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ , basically, different sizes of infinity. Thus, although infinity cannot be considered a number, it can be used as a measure of size. Hence, it is mathematically and grammatically correct to use phrases such as 'infinitely many', or 'an infinite number of '.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • The cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ assuming the continuum hypothesis, but it could be much bigger in $mathsf{ZFC}$!
      – Alessandro Codenotti
      15 mins ago
















    8














    Infinity is not a number, as you said. However, it is a cardinality. For example, the cardinality of the naturals is $aleph_0$ and the cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ , basically, different sizes of infinity. Thus, although infinity cannot be considered a number, it can be used as a measure of size. Hence, it is mathematically and grammatically correct to use phrases such as 'infinitely many', or 'an infinite number of '.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • The cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ assuming the continuum hypothesis, but it could be much bigger in $mathsf{ZFC}$!
      – Alessandro Codenotti
      15 mins ago














    8












    8








    8






    Infinity is not a number, as you said. However, it is a cardinality. For example, the cardinality of the naturals is $aleph_0$ and the cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ , basically, different sizes of infinity. Thus, although infinity cannot be considered a number, it can be used as a measure of size. Hence, it is mathematically and grammatically correct to use phrases such as 'infinitely many', or 'an infinite number of '.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Infinity is not a number, as you said. However, it is a cardinality. For example, the cardinality of the naturals is $aleph_0$ and the cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ , basically, different sizes of infinity. Thus, although infinity cannot be considered a number, it can be used as a measure of size. Hence, it is mathematically and grammatically correct to use phrases such as 'infinitely many', or 'an infinite number of '.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 52 mins ago









    Haran

    767317




    767317












    • The cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ assuming the continuum hypothesis, but it could be much bigger in $mathsf{ZFC}$!
      – Alessandro Codenotti
      15 mins ago


















    • The cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ assuming the continuum hypothesis, but it could be much bigger in $mathsf{ZFC}$!
      – Alessandro Codenotti
      15 mins ago
















    The cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ assuming the continuum hypothesis, but it could be much bigger in $mathsf{ZFC}$!
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    15 mins ago




    The cardinality of the reals is $aleph_1$ assuming the continuum hypothesis, but it could be much bigger in $mathsf{ZFC}$!
    – Alessandro Codenotti
    15 mins ago











    0














    I think "an infinite number of _____" is a fine use but here's a maybe far fetched potential conceptual pitfall.



    There is an infinite number of ways to answer the posed question. In fact (in some sense, because I am limited to using symbols from a finite alphabet), there is $aleph_0$. That is, there is countably many different answers one could type up.



    And if you sequence the rational numbers $q_1,q_2,dots $ then this sequence has an infinite number of subsequential limit points. In fact, there are continuum such limit points.



    A potential pitfall would be to think that these are same. Just because there is an infinite number of ways of doing $X$ and infinite number of ways of doing $Y$ doesn't mean there is the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$.



    Anyway: I think this pitfall is somewhat far fetched but it's definitely worth keeping in mind that the rules that obvious to us when dealing with number do not apply to infinities.



    "If there $z$ ways of doing $X$ and there $z$ ways of doing $Y$ then there are the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$. Is a perfectly valid conclusion when we are working with $z=17$... but not when $z$ is infinite.






    share|cite


























      0














      I think "an infinite number of _____" is a fine use but here's a maybe far fetched potential conceptual pitfall.



      There is an infinite number of ways to answer the posed question. In fact (in some sense, because I am limited to using symbols from a finite alphabet), there is $aleph_0$. That is, there is countably many different answers one could type up.



      And if you sequence the rational numbers $q_1,q_2,dots $ then this sequence has an infinite number of subsequential limit points. In fact, there are continuum such limit points.



      A potential pitfall would be to think that these are same. Just because there is an infinite number of ways of doing $X$ and infinite number of ways of doing $Y$ doesn't mean there is the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$.



      Anyway: I think this pitfall is somewhat far fetched but it's definitely worth keeping in mind that the rules that obvious to us when dealing with number do not apply to infinities.



      "If there $z$ ways of doing $X$ and there $z$ ways of doing $Y$ then there are the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$. Is a perfectly valid conclusion when we are working with $z=17$... but not when $z$ is infinite.






      share|cite
























        0












        0








        0






        I think "an infinite number of _____" is a fine use but here's a maybe far fetched potential conceptual pitfall.



        There is an infinite number of ways to answer the posed question. In fact (in some sense, because I am limited to using symbols from a finite alphabet), there is $aleph_0$. That is, there is countably many different answers one could type up.



        And if you sequence the rational numbers $q_1,q_2,dots $ then this sequence has an infinite number of subsequential limit points. In fact, there are continuum such limit points.



        A potential pitfall would be to think that these are same. Just because there is an infinite number of ways of doing $X$ and infinite number of ways of doing $Y$ doesn't mean there is the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$.



        Anyway: I think this pitfall is somewhat far fetched but it's definitely worth keeping in mind that the rules that obvious to us when dealing with number do not apply to infinities.



        "If there $z$ ways of doing $X$ and there $z$ ways of doing $Y$ then there are the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$. Is a perfectly valid conclusion when we are working with $z=17$... but not when $z$ is infinite.






        share|cite












        I think "an infinite number of _____" is a fine use but here's a maybe far fetched potential conceptual pitfall.



        There is an infinite number of ways to answer the posed question. In fact (in some sense, because I am limited to using symbols from a finite alphabet), there is $aleph_0$. That is, there is countably many different answers one could type up.



        And if you sequence the rational numbers $q_1,q_2,dots $ then this sequence has an infinite number of subsequential limit points. In fact, there are continuum such limit points.



        A potential pitfall would be to think that these are same. Just because there is an infinite number of ways of doing $X$ and infinite number of ways of doing $Y$ doesn't mean there is the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$.



        Anyway: I think this pitfall is somewhat far fetched but it's definitely worth keeping in mind that the rules that obvious to us when dealing with number do not apply to infinities.



        "If there $z$ ways of doing $X$ and there $z$ ways of doing $Y$ then there are the same number of ways of doing $X$ as there are ways of doing $Y$. Is a perfectly valid conclusion when we are working with $z=17$... but not when $z$ is infinite.







        share|cite












        share|cite



        share|cite










        answered 2 mins ago









        Mason

        1,9181530




        1,9181530






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053635%2fis-it-mathematically-wrong-to-say-infinite-number%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

            How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

            TypeError: fit_transform() missing 1 required positional argument: 'X'