Infinis que seras tamen1 I. M. R.

Pinheiro2

Abstract:

A new system of both geometric representation and reference for mathematical objects is introduced. One of the many possible reasons for swapping the Cartesian Plane system for the system presented in this paper is lightly discussed in the own paper: The amount of scientific mistake that has originated in the perpetuation of certain erroneous paradigms, which ought to have appeared through subliminal processes deriving from the use of the Cartesian Plane as a mathematical tool.

Key-words: Infinity, Cartesian, coordinates, space, time, world, number, limit, reals, operations.

1 Copying the statement libertas que seras tamen, translated into freedom, even if
late, and adapting it to our notion: No borders, even if late .

2 Po Box 12396, ABeckett st, Melbourne, Victoria, 8006. E-mail:

mrpprofessional@yahoo.com.

Infinis que seras tamen

1/24

1. Introduction:

The term infinity apparently comes from the Latin word infinis, which means no borders (see [S. Schwartzman 1994], for instance). Neglecting the origins of the term, mathematicians have said that there was an infinity of numbers between each randomly chosen couple of rational numbers, for instance. It is obvious, however, that the infinity the never-ending progress of the horizontal Cartesian axis forms is of different nature -completely different- from that infinity of numbers between any randomly chosen couple of rational numbers: The in-between numbers are obviously bounded by at least the couple of rational numbers that have just been mentioned, for instance. Basically, when we write about the infinity of numbers between two rational numbers, we a sort of imagine an infinity that fits some very well limited length, for which starting and finishing points are well controlled by us. Truth is that if both abstract objects ever deserved the same pointer, such could only be in the English language, never in Mathematics. Infinis que seras tamen 2/24

How could something that is reached inside of something else compare to something nothing ever reaches? Infinity is obviously a referent in the human language, but that does not necessarily imply that infinity may be used as a referent in Mathematics. For each and every referent that we decide to insert in the world of Mathematics, we need to prove to ourselves that the condition points to a single world reference, with no mistake or confusion is satisfied, once Mathematics has to be the scientific place of maximum amount of control (over all inside of it). The linguistic referent infinity, unfortunately, as we shall endeavour to prove in this paper, is one of the referents that does not satisfy the just mentioned condition. That does not mean that the referent infinity is useless, just means that it is not an acceptable mathematical referent. Infinity is still a respectable referent, which has inspired several people both inside and outside of Mathematics. Someone in Mathematics, for instance, felt compelled to create Aleph to represent the last number, which would not be infinity, but would correspond to it (?) . Such a fact is found reported in [H. C. Parr 2003] together with a very elucidative discussion on that. According to the source, Aleph-0 would correspond to the order of the infinity to which the natural numbers Infinis que seras tamen 3/24

would belong: A trial of measuring how much more infinite one infinity is in comparison with another, matching our intuition, which tells us that there are more rational numbers than natural numbers in the world of Mathematics, for instance. The same source, however, brings trivial argumentation as to why Aleph-0 is not a good measure for how big the infinity of the natural numbers is: They multiply each natural number by two and obtain the even numbers, claiming that to be half of the previous size and still of Aleph-0 size... . The discussion that we have just described is one more piece of evidence about there being something absolutely wrong either with the term infinity being used in Mathematics or with the world reference chosen to describe infinity in Mathematics. Aleph makes us realise that we need more than one term of the human language to designate the current mathematical references for infinity, once the current lingo leads people to at least sometimes imagine that there is a cardinality attached to the concept of infinity, cardinality that is of fixed size, like the current lingo leads people to sometimes imagine that infinity is a physical length. We would like to state that the right question to be asked is why?, not how?, as for starters, in any theory. The motivation for creating the denomination infinity for the idea of never finding an end in the horizontal Cartesian axis is obviously different from the motivation for creating a denomination for the idea Infinis que seras tamen 4/24

of having a humanly uncountable amount of real numbers between any two real numbers, given the concern being of different nature. It could not be that, in Mathematics, those two denominations would be the same (for Mathematics must be precise, with most univocal linguistic pointers as possible), therefore. The ideas involved in the two senses of infinity mentioned above are quite different as well: What comes to mind, in the piece of ruler containing several infinities, is something like several thread rolls, one after the other, spaced by, perhaps, a rational number, whilst the idea of the never-ending walk is that of the straight line. We discuss all these ideas in depth in the sections that follow: We start with the Latin term infinis, progress to trying to name the uncountably many members of the club of the reals that lie between any couple of rationals and to writing about the World of Infinita, then to teaching through example how to replace the Cartesian Plane with the World of Infinita, and to finally close the paper (conclusion and reference sections).

2. Infinis

There is no more adequate world reference than no borders for what happens to the growth of the real numbers, as time goes by, in any Infinis que seras tamen 5/24

step size that we take over them (one unit, half unit, and etc.). This way, walking in the positive direction on the real numbers line would lead the walker to the conclusion that the only possible answer to the question what is the highest real number? is real numbers bear (infinis) no borders, that is, they go nowhere, or they keep on going forever. Because mathematicians are lazy, instead of stating real numbers have infinis, they say they go to infinity, meaning the special place where no borders exist, or no place at all, once there is never a stopping point. Infinity, according to one of our most popular dictionaries ([MerriamWebster-1 2009]), would mean: Main Entry: infinity Pronunciation: \in-'fi-n-t\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural infinities Date: 14th century 1 a: the quality of being infinite b: unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity : boundlessness2: an indefinitely great number or amount <an Infinity of stars>3 a: the limit of the value of a function or variable when it tends to become numerically larger than any preassigned finite number b: a part of a geometric magnitude that lies beyond any part whose distance from a given reference position is finite <do parallel lines ever meet if they extend to Infinity> c: a transfinite number (as Aleph-null)4: a distance so great that the rays of light from a point source at that distance may be regarded as parallel However, there is substantial difference between a precise place called infinity (meaning number 3a from the dictionary extract) and a Infinis que seras tamen 6/24

quality meaning bearing no borders (meaning 1b from the dictionary extract). It has to be the hugest mistake of all stating that the real numbers keep on going forever, go to infinity. No, they keep on going forever, never stopping, at most with infinis. Notice that the set of the real numbers does not have any of the borders, but the set of the natural numbers, for instance, does not have the right border only, so that we should have two different referents, one for each one of the mentioned situations, if willing to apply human language to Mathematics, for, in Mathematics, no inaccuracies are allowed: If a term generates confusion (confusion might simply mean multiple interpretations), it is simply not good enough to be part of the mathematical lingo. Given so much inaccuracy in the Mathematics that is generated by the use of the term infinity, the most sensible attitude of all is erasing the concept, as well as the symbol, for infinity everywhere in Mathematics and starting over. In Mathematics, the symbol and the word infinity are applied to at least the following situations: a) Mathematical description (and calculation) of limits; b) Mathematical description of intervals; and c) Primary school mathematical operations. The limit of the function f(x) = x, when x never stops growing (or Infinis que seras tamen 7/24

when x goes to infinity, according to the language used so far in the world of Mathematics) in the set of real numbers, to use one of the situations that we have just mentioned, has to be delusional, for there is no accumulation point in the real numbers line that does for the end of the set as a whole. Therefore, the right decision here would be excluding, from the realm of possible questions in Mathematics, what is the limit of the real function f(x) = x when the domain member grows to infinity?. Basically, we need to state, in this case, that the limit of f(x) = x, as x never stops growing in the set of the real numbers, is not a valid mathematical request because there is no accumulation point at the end of the real numbers line (writing things as they are is obviously the most basic mathematical duty of all). Notice that we had to appeal to the use of common language, therefore to the use of terms that are not part of the mathematical lingo, to explain what was going on in the just mentioned situation. The explanation is simple: We have proved that the just mentioned request is not sound in Mathematics, therefore does not belong to the world of Mathematics. If something lies partially, or totally, outside of the world of Mathematics, it has to be dealt with at least some terms that are not part of the mathematical lingo. With the intervals description and the operations, the problem has to be that it is unacceptable to equate to 5. We cannot, obviously, use Infinis que seras tamen 8/24

 and 5 in the same mathematical situations, for they are entities of different nature. is not a location in the real numbers axis, for instance, but 5 is. We obviously have to find alternative ways, which will probably be more complex than the ways we use this far, of describing our ideas in the Mathematics sceneries. To mention one mathematically sound alternative, instead of writing [5,), we should probably be writing {x R/ 5 x}. Once the intervals, in Mathematics, seem to have been inspired by the Cartesian Plane representation, we should need to fix the Cartesian Plane in order to finish with the problem involving infinity and the intervals in Mathematics. Notice that when we get |0 to [0,1], for instance. When we get |0 >, we shorten it to [0,) instead. |1 in the Cartesian Plane, we shorten it

The representation [1,) should be a translation of the idea {x R/ 1 x}, but it is, as we have already proven in this paper, another statement instead: It actually means |1 |. | because we do not believe that it is possible to fit the length > instead).

We do not write |1

in our piece of paper (we write |1

In order to translate the idea {x R/ 1 x} into an interval, we have, therefore, to create another symbol, a symbol that does not create Infinis que seras tamen 9/24

confusion, as explained before in this very paper. Once more, writing things in a different way: Because using the Cartesian Plane as a mathematical tool would lead us to, amongst other things, believe that [1,) is a viable option, the Cartesian Plane must be replaced with another space. This special space, beyond Mathematics, or simply outside of it, would have to satisfy the identified psychological need of mathematicians of seeing things from a geometric perspective and should not imply any mistake in the Mathematics through subliminal psycholinguistic processes. As a first requirement, this special space, to allow us to state that we are presenting something more scientifically bearable than the Cartesian Plane, must provide us with a way of stating clearly (therefore also geometrically) that the referent infinity does not belong to the world of Mathematics; for infinity belongs to somewhere connected, of course, but somewhere of different nature to that of the world of Mathematics, that is, to what we could call

EXTRAMATHEMATICS (see [Bunyan 1997], for instance). As an illustrative allurement, Extramathematics could be told to be to Mathematics the same thing that Metaphysics is for human kind: A sort of connection between what is of its nature and what is beyond. Basically, the own numbers, poor things, will never get to infinity if keeping their nature, the same way humans will never get to the Infinis 10/24 que seras tamen

spiritual world if doing so: Trascendence is a necessity in both cases, that is, acquiring temporarily a nature that is different from the usual nature, that goes beyond. It is as if God and infinity did not exist in reality (reality = usual nature's world?), what existed were everything in the middle, but, if we did not invent God and infinity, we would not have an anthropocentric world and we then could think that progressing in the direction of the absolute knowledge or the absolute control over all that there is is an impossible task, what could lead us to stop investing in Science, for instance. Also, to the side of why, human beings apparently love either being bossed, commanded, adoring things and people, or thinking that they will be able to occupy the position of whatever, or whoever, to them is superior some day. If the figure of the boss did not exist, the vast majority of the human beings apparently would feel lost, in a world with no leaders to follow, that is, in a world with nobody to be blamed for their mistakes who is not themselves, what could also lead to absence of motivation to invest in their human existence, for instance. To insert all that we have placed in the EXTRAMATHEMATICS world in the Mathematics world once more, we will make use of our World of Infinita, where nothing ever reaches, mainly because it does not exist but we imagine that it does, and we will work with the infinita the Infinis que seras tamen 11/24

same way we work with the imaginary numbers, for the square root of a negative number exists as much as the physical place that no number ever reaches does.

3. World of Infinita

Apparently, both mathematicians and logicians, so far, have never really acknowledged the enormous differences between Language and Mathematics, perhaps not even as school disciplines. For instance, if one utters, in the English language, I will go to infinity!; is that right or wrong? The answer is simple: There is no right or wrong here, for a person may utter whatever they like, sensible or not; there are no rules for utterances. There are fixed rules for punctuation, for spelling, and etc., but not for what may, or may be not, uttered. They say I will go to infinity! and the message that they wish to convey is sometimes even fully understood by the intended recipient. Probably something similar to I will go to nowhere where you can find me. Mathematics, however, whilst part of Science, must hold severely tied discourse, which allow for abstraction over abstraction to develop in the direction of the true progress. This way, we should always worry about the study of its terms, making sure that no mistakes occur in its Infinis 12/24 que seras tamen

lingo, specially inconsistencies. In human language, the idea of place, when the term infinity is used, is unavoidable. To mention one example, Look at the infinity! brings the term infinity associated with the idea of skies, therefore place. We also say myriad, or infinity, of coins (means uncountably many in our heads but, for Mathematics, the infinity of coins in this sentence actually means countably many, for the number of coins produced on Earth is always finite) and the idea that is intended by this sentence is that of a subject getting exhausted of trying to even think about how to count the coins, so that the sensation of the person uttering this sentence is that of the amount of coins comparing to the size of the sky, a place: A place of fatigue, fatigue that relates to the repetitive unsuccessful perspective). Some people seem to have extended the same allowances of the human language to the mathematical lingo but whilst, in language, almost anything can be accepted, perhaps under special conditions at least sometimes; in Mathematics, very little can be accepted, the most limiting condition of the mathematical lingo being that every term in it must be univocal. Those people have wrongly called infinity both the myriad of numbers around a specific number in the real axis and the place that is not determined, is never reached in reality by both eyes and imagination. Infinis 13/24 que seras tamen trials of fully controlling things (from a human

The two ideas are substantially different in nature and, therefore, could only increase mistake, and probability of mistake, in Science if taken to be the same, that is, if being assigned the same referent in the mathematical lingo. Each term of the mathematical lingo should always, if possible, satisfy a condition that we could call perfect bijection, that is, should univocally point to a certain object (of either concrete or abstract nature) and have the pointed object univocally pointing to it in return. The idea that comes easily to our minds, after assessing the just exposed issues, is that we should drop the referent infinity and come up with other names, names that are not common in language, created for the specific end of pointing to the world references that were previously designated by the term infinity. That is obviously the only way to go, once the referent infinity is part of the usual language and is not univocal, what makes the term useless for mathematical purposes, as explained before. Proceeding this way, we start with taking the smallest piece we may physically, and easily, get in a ruler to mean X. We then say that X is a unit of measurement for the ruler. Next, we call each unit infinitum. Then, the set of all infinita will form the whole ruler, or axis. With this, instead of referring to infinity as a boundary, we will refer to the supremum of the infinita, or the infimum of the minus infinita; both concepts with no reference either in the ruler or in the world we live Infinis 14/24 que seras tamen

-empty referents (or sigmatoids), but at least expressing the right idea in the Mathematics. Our theory also solves the problems pointed by Parr, the issues involving Aleph: size of infinity, types of infinity, and etc. Now, one immediately understands how large the axis is when compared to its pieces, what is simply logical and makes it all coherent: Small pieces are infinitum, larger pieces are infinita, and the whole lot is the interval between the infimum of the negative infinita and the supremum of the positive ones. We then understand that 0.5 in the axis actually means 0.5 infinitum, what immediately makes us associate that with uncountably many units contained in it, what is definitely different from considering half a unit only (like half a chocolate?). From now onwards, we write x infinita meaning simply x, the real number, and such a writing will help us understand and deal with the physical universe, once it helps us keep in the mind the difference between what belongs to Mathematics and what belongs to Physics, what is trivially necessary. What follows is that it will be square infinita, for instance, while things are in the context of Mathematics, instead of square meters. This dissociates Mathematics from reality of things, making it all more sensible, for the world of Mathematics will never fit reality with 100% accuracy; it will fit this way only the world of an abstract ruler (for the Infinis 15/24 que seras tamen

concrete ruler usually bears mistakes of at least physical order) or the world of a mathematical object in general. This is a necessary dissociation, precisely to reduce the amount of vain discussions, unsolvable problems, and paradoxes in Science (those will be stopped by the time of generation now, as a consequence, at least those relating to the issues we deal with here). We then suggest that other elements, besides axe and title, become essential part of every mathematical graph of the Cartesian type. These elements form a triplet: size of the infinitum, origin, and time3. These elements should always respect the given order, so that anyone who read the graph know what the graph is about. Notice that, so far, the Cartesian Plane did not have rules for placing explicit elements from the domain, or from the image, of a function inside of it. Yet, the Cartesian Plane is one of the most important mathematical entities ever created and everything else in

3 The time that we refer to here is the time of creation of the graph or of collection
of the data, the latter being preferred, if available, to the former. Notice what a difference it all makes, in terms of mathematical elements, when it comes to analyzing graphs and understanding them: Now Mathematics will acknowledge the relevance of time, for just one second more could mean a centimeter more for element of domain 5, for instance, x=5. Now, graphs are finally also what Mathematics is about: Static pictures of a reality that has already passed and is fully under control (for further details on how important this little modification in the specifications of graphs in Mathematics is, see our work on Russell's Paradox ([M. R. Pinheiro 2008])).

Infinis 16/24

que

seras

tamen

Mathematics is found completely tied to rules. We are, therefore, starting to axiomatize this piece of Mathematics, once every mathematical object, if truly mathematical, must be born of some sort of axiom of definition. It is worth mentioning that our choice of infinitum size should be logical. To mention an example, we may get a graph where the domain elements differ by 0.5, the lowest-in-value domain element is 1, and the image elements differ by 0.2. The person thinks that they are ready to draw the graph by 2 pm of the 15th of June of 2011. In this case, we may elect 0.5 our infinitum size in the horizontal axis (smallest necessary slice of the domain) and 0.2 our infinitum size in the vertical axis. Because the maximum detail of the data is one decimal place, we'd better choose this format for every spelled member of the axis. On the other hand, it may be better placing the origin at (1;0). We would need all the details about the data to make sure that our choice is the logical choice, but we do not have the image of the points for our example. Assuming that this is all we know, our graph, to follow our rules, should bring the triplet ((0.5;0.2), (1;0), 15/06/2011 at 2 pm) soon after the title. The difference between the World of Infinita and the Cartesian Plane might be subtle, but it helps absolutely everyone involved at both subconscious and psycholinguistic levels. Now, everyone is kept Infinis 17/24 que seras tamen

aware of the presence of an infinite number of members in each nondegenerated interval of the real line. On the other hand, with our triplets, we also become aware of the difference between the infinitum of size 0.5 and the infinitum of size 1.3, for instance, that is, we understand that there are less elements in one than in the other. Some changes will not be a big deal. For instance, all the operations that used to return infinity in Mathematics so far will return one of the options below instead: a) Sup Infta; b) Inf -Infta. Besides, all the operations that used to contain infinity4 will now have, instead, one of the elements above (a or b). Worth remembering that the way infinity is currently found in Mathematics makes us think that infinity is an actual number, passive of becoming a member of divisions, multiplications, and etc. However, this is incompatible with the current knowledge of the meaning of the entity created by John Wallis in 1655. With our notation, we now have something that is, in Mathematics, passive of proper

4 Originally, the symbol used for infinity was found replacing a determined numeral
in the sequence of the Roman numerals (see, for instance, [Weisstein 1999]). Notwithstanding, in Mathematics, we cannot accept symbols, or words, for its lingo that have already been used somewhere else to mean something else in the own Mathematics, for everything in Mathematics should be univocal. Therefore, we are actually fixing more historical mistakes than the ones we have initially waved with by producing this new notation, or these new referents, for the mathematical lingo.

Infinis 18/24

que

seras

tamen

inclusion in a division, in a multiplication, or in any other operation, as a member. Even the immediate understanding of what is going on in the operation of division between 1 and x, for instance, using the example from [Weisstein 1999], when x goes to what should be the largest real number available, is now incredibly improved, for all is consistent and coherent with the pre-existent mathematical concepts that form a requisite, in terms of learning, for us to be able to understand what goes on in the operation calculating the limit of. While, before we change things, a teacher would have to teach infinity soon after introducing the concept of limit, now they may simply add the concept of limit instead, following all other mathematical concepts, so that things do not look as if they are being manufactured, forced, or forged.

4. Practice: One example.

We now present one example of a graphical situation in which, previously, we would be including the Cartesian Plane as environment of display to show how easy it is to replace the Cartesian Plane with the World of Infinita. From [Dendane 2008]: Problem 5: The cost of producing x tools by a company is given by C(x) = 1200 x + 5500 (in $) a) What is the cost of 100 tools? b) What is the cost of 101 tools? c) Find the difference between the cost of 101 and 100 tools. d) Find the slope of the graph of C? e) Interpret the slope. Infinis 19/24 que seras tamen

To draw the graph describing the problem, the best thing to do is dividing the given function by 1000. In this case, each unit of the previous function will be replaced with one thousandth of it in the graph. Once the main intents of the problem are seeing the slope of the graph of the function, we should choose at least two domain numbers to work with. Suppose that we choose x = 0 and x = 1, attaining C10=5.5 and C11=6.7. Going beyond the need (calculating the slope), we also choose x = 2 and form one more ordered pair: (2; 7.9). This way, our infinitum could be worth 1 for our horizontal axis and 1.2 for our vertical axis. The time of collection of the data may be assumed to be today and now, for it is not relevant in the problem proposal or we cannot investigate the origin of the data. The origin of the system may be the usual one: (0;0). This way, we would end up with the following graphical description for our situation:

World of Infinitum or W. I. ((1 tool; 1.2 dollars (original cost 1000)), (0;0), 15th June 2011 at 3:00 pm)

C. D. Infta

D. Infta

Infinis 20/24

que

seras

tamen

In the World of Infinita, we call our Cartesian look-alike axes Domain of Infinita and Counter-Domain of Infinita5, instead of Domain and Counter-Domain, which are usually referred to as x and y, and represent their names by means of acronyms. Were our W. I. displaying the graph that describes the Problem 5 in full, our horizontal axis would show the numbers 0, 1, and 2 and our vertical axis would show the numbers 5.5, 6.7, and 7.9. The complete graph for the Problem 5 should read, in the W.I.:

Cost per tool, company unknown, slope problem ((1 tool; 1.2 dollars (original cost 1000)), (0;0), 15th June 2011 at 3:00 pm)
7.9 6.7 5.5

C. D. Infta

D. Infta
0 1 2

Notice that the person dealing with the representation of a situation in the W. I. will have no difficulties in understanding that because the numbers hold clear separation, or
5 We do not call the horizontal axis tools and the vertical axis cost because the axe cannot be called that way. Basically, if we do such, we will end up with a slope that is 1.2 dollars/tool, rather than 1.2, what is unacceptable in the Mathematics (remember that the slope is the tangent of the angle in which the line lies over the horizontal axis).

Infinis 21/24

que

seras

tamen

distinction, amongst themselves, and the physical objects, described by them in the graphs, are continuous in nature, or because the physical entities are not passive of fractioning beyond a certain level and the mathematical entities are, there is a huge distinction between the physical and the mathematical universe, which can only be dealt with through an artificial, highly manufactured, and exotic, world, such as the World of Infinita that we here propose.

5. Conclusion:

In this paper, we have proposed the World of Infinita as a replacement for the Cartesian Plane. The World of Infinita (W.I.) is, finally, a proper mathematical tool, once its use does not generate mistakes in the Mathematics. We have also proposed that we abandon both the symbol and the referent infinity in the Mathematics, once we prove that they both constitute mistaken conceptions when the foundations of both Mathematics and Language are considered. To replace the referent infinity, we have created the referents infinitum and infinita and we have made them be represented by abbreviations plus existent mathematical symbols.

Infinis 22/24

que

seras

tamen

6. References:

[Bunyan 1997] A. Bunyan, T. Benwell, M. Errey, et al. Prefixes. (1997). Englishclub.com. http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm. Accessed on the 15th of July of 2009. [Dendane 2008] A. Dendane. Linear function problems with solutions. (2008). Analyzemath.

http://www.analyzemath.com/math_problems/linear_func_problems.ht ml. Accessed on the 17th of July of 2009. [H. C. Parr 2003] H. C. Parr. Infinity. (2003). Available online at http://www.cparr.freeserve.co.uk/hcp/Infinity.htm. Accessed on the 3rd of May of 2008.

[Merriam-Webster-1 2009] Merriam-Webster's authors. Infinity. (2009). In MerriamWebster Online Dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Infinity.

Accessed on the 15th of July of 2009. [M. R. Pinheiro 2008] M. R. Pinheiro. Completeness and consistency of Arithmetics. (2008). Preprint located at scribd, illmrpinheiro and illmrpinheiro2. Accessed on the 1st of August of 2009. Infinis 23/24 que seras tamen

[S. Schwartzman 1994] S. Schwartzman. The Words of Mathematics: An Etymological Dictionary of Mathematical Terms. MAA.

ISBN:0883855119. [Weisstein 1999] E. W. Weisstein. Infinity. (1999). MathWorld.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html. Accessed on the 16th of July of 2009.

Infinis 24/24

que

seras

tamen