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

    • lad
      link
      fedilink
      1211 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        1111 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.

      • @Bender_on_Fire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        711 months ago

        I think quite some people heard of the concept of different kinds of infinity, but don’t know much about how these are defined. That’s why this meme should be inverted, as thinking the infinities described here are the same size is the intuitive answer when you either know nothing or quite something about the definition whereas knowing just a little bit can easily lead you to the wrong answer.

        As the described in the wikipedia article in the top level comment, the thing that matters is whether you can construct a mapping (or more precisely, a bijection) from one set to the other. If so, the sets/infinities are of the same “size”.

        • lad
          link
          fedilink
          211 months ago

          Yeah, inverting it is a good idea, truly

    • Iceblade
      link
      fedilink
      811 months ago

      Yeah, we can still however analyze the statement f(x)=100x$/1x$ lim(x->inf) and clearly come to the conclusion that as the number of bills x approaches infinity will be equal to 100.

      However, limes exists as a tool to avoid infinities and this exact problem when using calculus for practical applications - and as such it doesn’t apply here.

    • qaz
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      So it’s basically just a form of NaN?