【"∞" as physical quantity】
In mathematics, the symbol "∞" expresses "a state in which a number grows infinitely".
"∞" is not recognized as a "number".
"Infinity", which is famous as a "large number" representing physical quantity, and even larger Graham's number are known, but "∞" must be an even larger value than these.
No, I should say "state" instead of "value".
This is because "∞" is not "quantity".
Just like the principle of the constancy of the speed of light, even if something is added to "∞", it remains "∞".
"Speed of light" is the limit speed of the universe you live in.
Then, "∞" is the limit amount?
No, no. "∞" is not quantity... something is wrong.
【"∞" as a sequence】
"Number" represents quantity and at the same time represents "order".
And the "origin" where the order begins was "0".
If so, isn't "∞" the "end point" of "number"?
Certainly, "∞" is not a physical quantity, but in that sense "0" is also in the same category.
Just as the property of ``0'' that ``cannot express physical quantity'' was special compared to other numbers, ``∞'' also has the same property, so it is special compared to other numbers. is.
If we regard such things as having "absolutely no physical quantity" as "numbers," then we must also accept the opposite side (back side?) of "∞," meaning "having all physical quantities," as a "number." not.
The reason why "∞" is not recognized as a "number" seems to be the same reason why "0" has not been recognized as a "number" for a long time.
Mathematically, "0" is a "point" that has no size (physical quantity), whereas "∞" is a "place" that contains all physical quantities.
【Need for a paradigm shift】
Conceptually, you could think of an "endless state".
Even in physics, it is strongly suggested that the universe is "∞".
If so, "∞" actually exists in nature.
Despite this, mankind cannot give ``∞'' a qualification as a ``number''.
It is a kind of conceptual limitation derived from the definition of "∞".
It is the same as the difficult process before "0" was recognized as a number.
There is a thing called "IUT theory" that Japanese mathematicians announced in relation to "ABC conjecture".
It is said to be a "paper from the future" that brings about a revolution in mathematics thought.
It is a very novel mathematical theory, and it is similar to the history of "general relativity" in that few people can understand it.
If we leave the judgment of the correctness of this theory to mankind 100 years from now, it is wrong to exclude it simply because it uses a different method than before.
I order from those who support the mathematics world.
It seems we need a paradigm shift.
Please build a new mathematical system without being bound by preconceived notions.
Brave challengers who try to weave new concepts should be welcomed rather than rejected.
The mechanisms of nature are beyond human comprehension. Over time, humanity began to understand this.
"And yet the earth is spinning."