Author |
Topic: The Real Projective Line (Read 1282 times) |
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender: 
Posts: 1825
|
 |
The Real Projective Line
« on: Sep 23rd, 2007, 9:37am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
Does anyone know much about the real projective line extension of the real number system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_line
I'm particularly interested in the "definition", a/0 = inf, where a is non-zero and belongs to the set of reals.
In which case, wouldn't inf*0 be undefined? (It could be equal to any real quantity.)
However, as inf*a = inf, then multiplying any non-zero real by infinity is properly defined. Hence it is multiplying by zero that becomes the new "undefined". It seems that they're just replacing one undefined calculation: a/0, with another: 0*inf.
In fact, is a*0 properly defined?
|
|
 IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: The Real Projective Line
« Reply #1 on: Sep 23rd, 2007, 10:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 23rd, 2007, 9:37am, Sir Col wrote:I think Icarus explained it somewhere once.
Quote: I'm particularly interested in the "definition", a/0 = inf, where a is non-zero and belongs to the set of reals.
In which case, wouldn't inf*0 be undefined? (It could be equal to any real quantity.) |
|
According to that wiki-page it is undefined.
Quote:| However, as inf*a = inf, then multiplying any non-zero real by infinity is properly defined. Hence it is multiplying by zero that becomes the new "undefined". It seems that they're just replacing one undefined calculation: a/0, with another: 0*inf. |
|
Both are undefined normally, so I don't see how it's a replacement.
Actually, 0*inf isn't even a valid expression in normal arithmetic, because inf isn't a number there.
Quote:| In fact, is a*0 properly defined? |
|
If a is not infinity, sure.
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 23rd, 2007, 10:27am by towr » |
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: The Real Projective Line
« Reply #2 on: Sep 23rd, 2007, 12:17pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 23rd, 2007, 10:25am, towr wrote:| Actually, 0*inf isn't even a valid expression in normal arithmetic, because inf isn't a number there. |
|
Duh! I don't know what I was thinking. 
Which reminds me of three interesting "arguments"...
(i) inf * 0 = 0 + 0 + 0 + ... = 0
(ii) As y tends towards infinity x/y tends towards zero. Therefore x / inf = 0. Hence inf * 0 = x; that is, any finite value you want.
(iii) Consider the algebraic identity, x * 1/x = 1, which is defined for finite x. As x tends towards infinity, 1/x tends towards zero, so the limit of x * 1/x = inf * 0 = 1.
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
Sir Col
Uberpuzzler
impudens simia et macrologus profundus fabulae
Gender:
Posts: 1825
|
|
Re: The Real Projective Line
« Reply #3 on: Sep 23rd, 2007, 12:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
And whilst I'm at it I may as well post another old favourite...
As x / y = 1, it follows that inf / inf = 1.
Therefore (inf + inf) / inf = inf / inf = 1
And (inf + inf) / inf = inf / inf + inf / inf = 1 + 1 = 2.
Hence 1 = 2. 
|
|
IP Logged |
mathschallenge.net / projecteuler.net
|
|
|
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Some people are average, some are just mean.
Gender:
Posts: 13730
|
|
Re: The Real Projective Line
« Reply #4 on: Sep 23rd, 2007, 12:28pm » |
Quote Modify
|
How about:
inf = card( )
0 =card( )
inf * 0 = card( x ) = card() = 0
And of course with these kinds of zeros and this kind of multiplication, unless I'm missing something, 0*a=0 for all a (even if a is infinite).
|
|
IP Logged |
Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
|
|
|
Obob
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 489
|
|
Re: The Real Projective Line
« Reply #5 on: Sep 23rd, 2007, 3:01pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Well we do want to be able to do arithmetic with more than just integers, so defining multiplication in terms of cardinalities can't be done in general.
Really, though, either you can define a/0=inf or inf.0=0 without having any serious arithmetic issues. Once you define both, the arithmetic no longer behaves as nicely as you want it to.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Barukh
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 2276
|
|
Re: The Real Projective Line
« Reply #6 on: Sep 26th, 2007, 12:23am » |
Quote Modify
|
I like the geometrical apsect of this. Consider the following statement from Euclidian geometry:
Two lines intersect in exactly one point except when they are parallel.
In projective geometry (where lines are projective) the "except" part can be removed!
This is also true for some nice transformations (like inversion or reciprocation w.r.t. circle).
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Sameer
Uberpuzzler
Pie = pi * e
Gender:
Posts: 1261
|
|
Re: The Real Projective Line
« Reply #7 on: Sep 26th, 2007, 9:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Sep 26th, 2007, 12:23am, Barukh wrote:I like the geometrical apsect of this. Consider the following statement from Euclidian geometry:
Two lines intersect in exactly one point except when they are parallel.
In projective geometry (where lines are projective) the "except" part can be removed!
|
|
This is new to me. So does this mean, in projective geometry, the parabola y=x2 and the line y=x have two points of intersection?
Edit: oops I meant 3. (0,0), (1,1), ( , )
|
| « Last Edit: Sep 26th, 2007, 9:20am by Sameer » |
IP Logged |
"Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
--Bell, Eric Temple
Proof is an idol before which the mathematician tortures himself.
Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Bridges to Infinity
|
|
|
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 7527
|
|
Re: The Real Projective Line
« Reply #8 on: Sep 26th, 2007, 9:16am » |
Quote Modify
|
yes
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
RIDDLES SITE
WRITE MATH!
Home 
Help 
Search 
Members 
Login 
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print