@@samueldeandrade8535 this doesn't seem like the exact same thing as the initial problem, but I don't know if I'm able to elaborate on why does it feel like that.
@@justcommenting5117 the problem eventually discussed in the video is the same I commented. The initial problem "what is bigger, 2^∞ or ∞²" has more than one interpretation. Actually, it has infinite interpretations. But the narrator of the video interprets it as comparing 2^x with x² I was just silly with my comment, because I agree with OP. What's done in the video is not Math. AI voice? Poorly defined problem? Bad solution and comments? This video is just bad.
@@megubin9449 oh my Euler, are kidding me that "googology" is a thing? Haha. You are absolutely right. I didn't know the study of big numbers had a name! It is the numerical sibling of category theory, from the family Nonsense.
Let me explain: Infinity is not a number, as it is endless, both equations shown in the video are endless, so you cannot conclude with one of them being larger than the other. As infinity is not a number, both of the products are equal to infinity. For the people who ask if they are equal, no they are not, as they don’t represent a value. This is like saying infinity multiplied by infinity is larger than infinity. Edit: I would also will like to confirm that there was an another saying where a half circle was equal to its diameter whereas the proof, they made smaller semicircles that go infinitely to prove pi was equal to four, but this is just completely false, as dividing something by infinity, which does not represent a value, will not give a clear result of what you are looking for. Example: Calling 1/infinity = 0 is the same thing with calling 0 x infinity = 1
I think the answer is based on a wrong assumption - you deal with infinity as a definitive number as 10. I don't think that is mathematically correct, accordingly the proof is incorrect.
How it basically works is he is taking the limit of x as x approaches infinity. Since infinity isn’t a number and just a concept, you can’t actually evaluate 2 to the infinity or infinity to the 2, but rather you can observe the pattern as some variable x approaches a ridiculously large number that we represent with infinity, and conclude which is larger. When he showed the graph at the end, you could see that the graph of 2 to the x grew much faster than x squared, showing that it will be larger and larger the farther you go out, and the closer you get to infinity.
@@qloxer1264this doesn't work though. He assumed both infinites grow the same (Im, of course, being hyperbolic here) If you wanted to compare ♾² to 2^♾, you would be more correct in taking the limit as (x, y) goes to (+♾, +♾) of x²/(2^y) or (2^y)/x² or any other combination. However, none of these limits exist. Simple example, take the limit as (x, y) goes to (+♾, +♾) along the curve y=2log_2(x) of x²/(2^y) This limit is equal to lim[x->+♾] (x²/x²) = 1 It is easily shown that the limit along the curve y=x is equal to 0. Since we found 2 different curves with different limits, it means that the beginning limit does not exist. In other words, 2^♾ can be almost anything in relation to ♾²
@@aoyuki1409 but it represents the power set of all the natural numbers and cantors diagonal argument shows it is uncountable infinity right? correct me if i am wrong
@@hayn10 im not sure myself, but i dont think 2^infinite cantors diagonal argument. it is just 2x2x2x2x2x2x2.... forever, not 2^1 + 2^2 + 2^3 .... that would be lim x->inf (2^x) and that would be uncountable infinity
@@aoyuki1409The number of possible combinations of numbers you can get with 2 numbers, such as 0 and 1, with n being the number of numbers, in the combination is 2^n, meaning that the number of possible combinations you can get from a countably infinity number of 1s and 0s is 2^aleph0, with aleph0 being the number of integers or the only countable infinity. If you list different combinations of the 0s and 1s you find that the diagonal argument does work to prove that the number of combinations of 0s and 1s cannot be countably infinity, so the diagonal argument can be used to prove that 2^aleph0 is uncountably infinite, and 2^infinity must be at least 2^aleph0 so if 2^aleph0 is uncountably infinite than 2^infinity is necessarily uncountably infinite.
@@hayn10you are wrong. 2^♾ is meaningless. 2^א0 is a notation which represents the cardinality of the powerset of natural numbers. But this is definitelly not the same as 2^♾.
@@Inspirator_AG112 thing is, you cannot take the limit as x goes to infinity of x²/(2^x). This will give you 0, that's true. However, we are comparing ♾ to ♾. No one says these 2 need to grow the same. In order to make a rigorous argument, you would need to take the limit as (x,y) goes to (+♾,+♾) of x²/(2^y). This limit, however, does not exist. If you take the limit along the curve y=x, you get the former result which is equal to 0. However, if you take the limit along the curve y=2log_2(x), you get that the limit is equal to 1. Since you get 2 different results for the same limit, the limit does not exist. This is a consequence of the fact that you can write down ♾ as 2*♾ = 2*log_2(♾), so 2^♾ can be written as ♾². Alternatively, ♾²=(2^♾)² >= 2^♾ This is less rigorous, of course, but I provided a more rigorous argument earlier
It’s more dependent on the context in which you see this problem. For example, in set theory, 2^infinity is technically qualitatively superior in terms of cardinality as it is a power set. Outside of bigger infinites, they are equal as in the end shown by desmos, they both ultimately reach infinity either way.
Infinity is not a concept that we can define so easily but from my perspective, by definition infinity is a number greater than all positive numbers, infinity multiplied by itself is just infinity and 2 to the power of infinity will always be a natural positive number since we are just multiplying by 2 every time so infinity is just larger.
@@herobrine_anims Well, not really. Nothing is greater than infinity or else that would contradict its definition. I think infinity × infinity = infinity because infinity = infinity × infinity... blah blah blah maybe. Idk, I'm not a mathematician so you should ask someone else.
When I studied limit and continuity mathematics, I was taught that if I want to make a comparison of this type, the best idea is to try very large numbers with tendencies to infinity as long as they are calculable and allow it to be applied to all cases. I checked by making a comparison between 2^1000 and 1000^2 and it turns out that 2^1000 is greater. If we constantly raise the numerical value of the exponent of "2^1000" and compare it with the numerical value resulting from constantly raising the base of "1000^2" the first case will always be greater. For those who are confused, the value "1000" in both cases represents infinities since when graphing and playing with infinities, you usually take very large values close to where a function tends to infinities. So, in my opinion, without having seen the video yet, I think that 2 to the power of infinity is greater than infinity squared.
@@Alt.Nit is still false though. If you are comparing 2^♾ to ♾², you should take the limit as (x,y) goes to (+♾,+♾) of something like x²/(2^y). This limit, however, does not exist
I think you're mistaken. There is a 1-1 correspondence between the real numbers in the interval [0, 1) and the infinite cross-product Z1 x Z1 x Z1 ... (Z = {0, 1}). The former set has cardinality aleph-sub-C. There is a 1-1 correspondence between Z x Z and Z itself, which has cardinality aleph-sub-0. The rules for counting tell us that the former set should have 2^infinity elements and the latter infinity^2 elements. So, 2^infinity = alephC > aleph0 = infinity^2.
@@walidjabari49852 ^ infinity is the cardinality of the real number line, which is UNcountably infinite, but infinity squared is only countably infinite.
So in general, when we get a problem, which is larger 10^100 or 100^10 power, we can conclude that 10^100 power will always be larger? And sure enough 10^100 = 1^100 while 100^10 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,
@@lyrimetacurl0what is a cube 2? I understand the infinite dimensions part because that’s the exponent but does it mean 2 people across infinite dimensions
I agree with your assessment to a point, but each of these will be infinite, furthermore I can create a 1-1 correspondence between them. So in fact they are the same infinity.
IF you think about it, nothing is larger. Its basically the same as comparing infinity to infinity. Infinity cannot be measured because its magnitude can expand... Infinitely. Infinity is not a constant unlike the ones substituted in the video, so regular concepts cannot be applied.
yes, but technicaly speaking, one infinite number can be larger than the other you can't say that 2*infinity = infinity just because they're both infinite numbers, right? if we divide both sides by infinity, we'll get 2*1 = 1 or 2 = 1 wich isn't right, wich means that 2*infinity is bigger than just infinity, proving that one infinite number can be larger than the other
lim[x->∞] x^2/2^x = lim[x->∞] ln(x^2)/ln(2^x) = lim[x->∞] 2ln(x)/xln(2) = 2/ln(2) lim[x->∞] ln(x)/x = 0. Therefore what's said in the video is true Also, if you think about it with computability theorems, ∞^2 could refer to any infinite set multiplied (cartesian product) by itself. For example N×N. Then 2^∞ could refer to any infinite sequence of pairs of elements (it has to be the same infinite as before) which is basically [a,b]^N. You could make an bijective function from N×N to {a,b}^N because that last set is a numerable union of numerable sets, therefore N×N~{a,b}^N, so if you think about it this way, what's said in the video is not true I use N because I want to mantain coherence when going from one set to another, and 2^∞ only makes sense in the context of infinite sequences of pairs, therefore that ∞ must be numerable. Also, I assume both infinities have to be the same; if you use R×R, suddenly 2^∞ is smaller than ∞^2 One less Orthodox approach I'd like to use is thinking about 2^∞ and ∞^2 as the cardinals of infinite sets. Given an infinite set A such that |A|=∞, it's provable that ∞^2=∞ (or A×A~A), and that 2^∞ is the cardinal of the parts set of A, i.e. |P(a)|=2^∞, because for finite sets of size n, |P(a)|=2ⁿ. And it's also provable that there's no injective function from P(A) to A for any set A, therefore 2^∞ is bigger than ∞^2 in this context As a final note, it's 6 am, I have to give a class in 1 hour and take a test in about 4 hours. I would greatly hate myself in the future for using so much brain power for this comment
Oops it seems I've made a mistake, it turns out that you cannot make a bijective function from N×N to {a,b}^N There are four possible pairs made from {a,b}: {a,b},{b,a},{a,a},{b,b}. Let's call them in order A,B,C,D If such bijective function exists, we can map every infinite sequence of these pairs to a natural number. So there should be a table like: 1: ABDACBDA... 2: BDABCADB... ... Where each natural number is associated to an infinite sequence of these pairs Then, let's say that the order of these pair is circular: B follows to A, C follows to B, D follows to C and A follows to D. If such table exists, we can construct any sequence and it should be in the table So let's made a sequence. For each position i in N of the sequence S, S[i]=Next(T[i,i]) where T[A,B] represents the pair in the position B of the A number of the table (so basically we use the pairs in the diagonal of the table) Now lets make an arbitrary table: 1: ABCD... 2: BACD... 3: CBDA... 4: DABC... With this table, our sequence would be BBAD..., which is not in the table. Moreover, if we keep adding pairs, the sequence will not be in the table, because it at least differs in one pair with the sequence in position i in the list. So there's a sequence which is not in the list, which in theory contained all the sequences. So such list and table don't exist. Therefore there's not such bijective function. And we've proven that |N×N|
You can also do this with limits. If you have a fraction with x squared as the numerator and 2 raised to the power x as the denominator, if the function approaches 0 as x approaches infinity then 2 raised to the power x is greater. However, if you have a fraction with 2 raised to the power x in the numerator and x squared in the denominator, if the function approaches infinity as x approaches infinity, 2 raised to the power x is larger still. Using this method, We can see that the limit of 2 raised to the power x as x approaches infinity is larger than the limit of x squared as x approaches infinity. Now the question is by how much?
From how I understand it, with your method both are countably infinite if you first restrict them to natural numbers: if you specify a certain member of an infinite set where each member is represented as 2^n or n^2 with any natural n, you can count through all the natural numbers until you reach n, and thus when n→∞, you can still count up to there, even if it takes an infinite amount of time. A bigger infinity you wouldn't be able to count up to even with unlimited time (kinda like how you can't count up from every real in-between 0.23 and 0.24 since you can simply add more digits). Because both sets are one-to-one correspondent with the set of natural numbers, they are equally infinite. Countable infinities are considered the smallest between infinities of different sizes because they have the cardinality of natural numbers (aleph-null). Now, since you counted them up with the set of real numbers, we can use similar logic to conclude both have the cardinality of real numbers and, thus, should be the same size. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
I appreciate the explanation. Compared to most recent math videos on here, it is understandable and MAY be agreed with. Notice I said "may". It doesn't mean, that I agree or disagree with it.. The truth is where I was raised, we were taught not to treat the "lazy 8" symbol an individual number. Most people do, and hence the explanation in this video. Where I was brought up, the infinity symbol basically meant a value that increases without bounds. Since the exponent in increasing without bound in the first expression, and the base is in the second, there is no way to tell which value is in really higher. But since the video indicates hints that an expression with a lower base and a higher exponent. than reversing it using the same numbers (in other words the same higher exponent now the base, and the same lower base now the exponent), it appears that the first expression would be higher. The catch is as shown, the same numbers have to be experimented with each as base and exponent. If one is changed for the second expression, this could make a difference.
Obviously equal. Infinity means it never stops, so no matter what configuration you choose, the result of both equations is infinity. By your explanations one should be larger than the other, but if you put actual numbers in there, they will be equally inifinite
infinity^2 is countably infinite, but 2^infinity is incountably infinite (see the Wikipedia entry for Cantor's diagonal argument, for example) so they can actually be ordered (cardinal numbers etc.) Although I would be careful using the words bigger/smaller for these concepts. Also the proof in the video is wrong because it assumes infinity is a number, so you are right in that regard
Thanks for posting this. It illustrates on of great difficulties when thinking about infinities. For example, which is larger infinity or infinity + 1? Your reasoning must conclude infinity + 1. Just draw the graphs for y = x and y = x + 1
Infinity is not a number so it doesnt make sense what you are saying also. Infinity+1 and infinity will still both equal infinty in the end. That just proves you have no idea how set theory works
it depends on what that ∞ represents. if that ∞ represents limit, 2^∞ > ∞^2. lim(x→∞) (2^x)/x² = ∞. if that ∞ represents transfinite cardinial, like Aleph0, 2^Aleph0 > Aleph0 = (Aleph0)^2 2^Aleph0 is cardinality of all real numbers while (Aleph0)^2 is still Aleph0. if that ∞ represents transfinite ordinal, like omega, 2^omega = omega < omega². the limit ordinal of {2, 4, 8, 16, ...} is a number that comes right after all natural numbers, which is equivalent to omega. omega² is defined as limit ordinal of {omega, omega2, omega3, ...}.
Infinity squared = infinity * infinity 2 ^ infinity = 2 ^ (2 ^ (infinity/2)) = 2^2^infinity since halfing an infinite number is still infinite, it gives you 4^infinity If you repeat this cycles, you get X^infinity where X goes towards infinity, which gives you Infinity ^ Infinity which is bigger then infinity ^ 2
Either one can be bigger than the other. The only way to have a definitive answer, is within a limit. It entirely depends on how fast the infinity on the left increases relative to the infinity on the right. If we set both uses of infinities to be x as x approaches infinity, then you do indeed get the result in the video. However, If we set the infinity on the left (I’ll notate with L) to be log2(R) (where R is the infinity on the right), L and R still both approach infinity. And yet the expression on the right hand side will be greater instead.
Infinity to the power of two is larger because you cant get to infinity starting with a finite number like two. Two to the power of infinity will just keep multiplying, and never get to infinity while infinity to the power of two is already infinity, meaning that infinity to the power of two is bigger.
Take limit of x to infinity, and calculate the derivative of (2^x) / (x^2) using L'Hospital's rule. Using this method 2^x is larger, so 2^ infinity is larger
Let n approach infinity, if you multiply 2 n times, and that n approaches infinity, 2^n would also approach infinity. n squared, as n approaches infinity is also well approaching infinity. And that’s also shown on the graph, they aren’t limited upper-bound, so they will continue to increase, thus neither of them is bigger than the other one.
Alternative ways to think 1. Go through limit approach and apply L-H rule and find value of limit 2. Remember exponential always dominant with respect to polynomial
No, when dealing with functions' limits, being able to compare infinities is important. ♾️/♾️ Could be infinity or could be 0, depending on which one's bigger. Hope this helps!
Problem: Infinity is not a number. But if you want to use it as a number then both sides evaluate to infinity. Therefore they're equal. The only way you could show otherwise would be to show that one infinity has a higher cardinality than the other. This wan't addressed in this video. Georg Cantor showed that the number of positive integers (1, 2, 3, ...) is EQUAL to the number of infinitely dense rational numbers, even though there are an infinite number of rational numbers between any two poitive integers. Both infinite sets have the same cardinality and therefore considered equal.
It depends. Are we using ordinal exponentiation or cardinal? In the former they are equal, but in the latter they are different. (Or is infinity² larger in the former case? I don't remember...)
@@BidenBlessesYou if you consider ω to be an "infinite numebr", then so can all numbers larger than ω be considered "infinite numbers". If you set ♾=ω, you are effectively saying ω+1>♾, which is nonsensical
Place an infinite amount of points on a circumference of a circle. Then pick any point of your choice on the circumference. Add one to that point or subtract one from that point. How far have you moved on the circumference in radians?
Add one of what? If you mean move up a different point, that would be 0 radians, since a circle is defined as all points a certain distance away from a center.
They are both infinity, but if we talking about a countable infinity, 2^inf is larger because it starts off slower and gets really big really fast. 2^15 is 32768. And 15^2 is only 225
very interesting video! i wish tho that you played a little bit with your proof there because going a little further you could prove that any number larger than 1 to the power of infinity is larger than the infinity to the power of any real number. Which means 1,0000000001^infinity is larger than infinity^999999999999 and that’s really fucking impressive lol.
These are both equal to infinity, what is presented in the video is more a question of limits. For example if you had (2ˣ)-(x²), after the 3rd intersection point, it would always be a positive number, meaning the first is larger. This means that as x goes to infinity, the left side grows faster than the right side, and thus would overpower it, which would make it "larger"(for any finite number, x-y is positive if and only if x>y, so this is a reasonable pattern to carry over to infinite numbers.) In calculus this can be applied more generally as things that aren't the highest degree not mattering(eg. x³ will overpower x², because 3>2.) Cool video, but the presentation of the problem is a bit misleading.
I won't split hairs about the use of infinity. I assumed that the video is about the limit. The video has a nice, reasonable start with "let's try a few exmples to get a better idea", but there is no real proof at the end. For a real proof, you can start with the hypothesis 2^x > x^2 for x>1. Then take the natural logarithm on both sides to get x*ln(2) > 2*ln(x) or approximately x > ln(x)*2.89. It is already known that ln(x) eventually grows slower than x (that's why logarithmic amplifiers are used for signal compression). Therefore, eventually x will be larger than ln(x)*2.89, which proves the hypothesis for large enough x, in particular when approaching infinity.
Don't treat infinity like a number though, since there's a lot of rules in many equations that wouldn't work if infinity was a number. Infinity breaks the system, so it's treated instead as a concept.
Well yeah my thought process tho is that, 2^infnity never ever ends you just get bigger and bigger numbers while infinity² is just infinity i think and infinity is always bigger than any number you get no matter how large, if you keep mutiplying by 2 even to the end of time
This is easy, just looking at the growth 2 to the power of x will always excess the growth of x squared. So 2 to the infinity power is bigger than infinity squared. Video over
*"But bro ∞ is an unstoppable thing. So 2^∞ is ∞ and ∞² is also ∞ so both are equal. For 2^x and x², if x is finite then only we can say 2^x>>>x² (only if x is finite). But if x is ∞ they are non comparable as ∞,∞²,∞³,∞^∞,2^∞... All are equal as all tends to ∞. If u considered ∞ as a very large number then only 2^∞>>∞². But the definition of ∞ says it's an unstoppable value so all ∞,∞²,∞³,∞^∞,2^∞... Are equal"👍*
Infinity can’t be treated as a number it’s a concept, there is no difference between infinity^2 and 2^infinity, this video is fundamentally wrong to even compare the two. Of course if said infinity was a number 2^n would be larger than n^2
Technically they are equal Infinity is very strange number, so it don't have to act like others. No matter, ho many times me multiply infinity, it will be infinity. So, W^2 is infinity. 2×2×2×2.... Infinity times is obviously infinity. So, 2^W is olso infinity. W^2=2^W
If we put both of these numbers into a grid perspective infinity to the power of two is a grid in which there is and infinite line and that infinite line is repeated infinitely to the side of the infinite line but two to the power of infinity is a grid with two dots double infinitely and is two line of infinity so infinite to the power of two is bigger
2^infinity = 2^aleph-0 = aleph-1 infinity^2 = aleph-0^2 = aleph-0 WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK IT IS BIGGER? THE CARDINALITY OF THE REAL NUMBERS OR OF THE INTERGERS??
This shouldn’t matter I think… if infinity is involved the number is ALWAYS growing or infinity… so they both equal the same thing inherently. I haven’t done hardcore math in a long time, but since every number is being squared while 2 is being raised to the power of every number they still encompass the same parameters… right? Even numbers smaller than 1 keep getting smaller. This is why I SOMETIMES hate math. But mostly I love it. I makes some cool stuff
square root of infinity^2 is just infinity and suare root of 2^infinity is 2^(infinity/2) since infinity divided by 2 is still infinity, square root of 2^infinity > square root of infinity^2 and 2^infinity > infinity^2
Ok, I don't completely get this but doesn't the infinite hotel problem say the opposite, that inf^2 is 2nd degree of infinity? E.g. no matter how many times you multiply by 2, you still just get a really large number - infinity - but if you square this infinity, you have infinitely many infinities?
You don't have to understand this with logarithms let me clear this short way Infinity is a thing so can't be multiplication divided If you take this infinity as a large number then it can be minus and divided but not multiple and add because nothing can be higher than large number no it can be lower 2^infinity doesn't exist same for infinity^2 But you can do this infinity-n and z≥0/infinity :) You can ask your class teacher does 2^infinity exist
this aint math this is meth
Not really. It can be made rigorous by saying
lim_{n→∞} 2ⁿ/n² = ∞
@@samueldeandrade8535 this doesn't seem like the exact same thing as the initial problem, but I don't know if I'm able to elaborate on why does it feel like that.
@@justcommenting5117 the problem eventually discussed in the video is the same I commented. The initial problem
"what is bigger, 2^∞ or ∞²"
has more than one interpretation. Actually, it has infinite interpretations. But the narrator of the video interprets it as comparing
2^x with x²
I was just silly with my comment, because I agree with OP. What's done in the video is not Math. AI voice? Poorly defined problem? Bad solution and comments? This video is just bad.
googology as a whole is meth
@@megubin9449 oh my Euler, are kidding me that "googology" is a thing? Haha. You are absolutely right. I didn't know the study of big numbers had a name! It is the numerical sibling of category theory, from the family Nonsense.
Exponential graphs increase much faster than quadratic graphs
Yep
2^2 tends to infinity. Inf^2 is infinity
@@milkingalmond2532i guess you meant 2^x tends to infinity and infinity^x is infinity? Well it’s not that simple
@@milkingalmond2532they are both infinity.
@@milkingalmond2532 2^2 is 4 stoop
Before watching the video, im guessing that (if they are well defined) 2^infinity is WAYYYYY bigger than infinity^2 😂
Not sure they're well defined either but 2^Aleph-Null is taken as the Cardinality of the Reals.
same
not WAYYYYY bigger, infinitely bigger lol. Which means 1,000000000000001^infinity is also bigger than infinity^9999999999999999
Unless both are same
Yeah lol lol lol lol lol lol yeah yeah
Let me explain: Infinity is not a number, as it is endless, both equations shown in the video are endless, so you cannot conclude with one of them being larger than the other. As infinity is not a number, both of the products are equal to infinity. For the people who ask if they are equal, no they are not, as they don’t represent a value. This is like saying infinity multiplied by infinity is larger than infinity.
Edit: I would also will like to confirm that there was an another saying where a half circle was equal to its diameter whereas the proof, they made smaller semicircles that go infinitely to prove pi was equal to four, but this is just completely false, as dividing something by infinity, which does not represent a value, will not give a clear result of what you are looking for.
Example: Calling 1/infinity = 0 is the same thing with calling 0 x infinity = 1
and if we use a number system that defines infinity?
Infinity can be a finite number in calculus bro it is -1/12 = infinity size of sum of all natural numbers
@@mrbutish you confonded maths et meths
@@mrbutish that's false
@mrbutish Average Numberphile viewer
Math isnt mathinnng
I think the answer is based on a wrong assumption - you deal with infinity as a definitive number as 10. I don't think that is mathematically correct, accordingly the proof is incorrect.
He only used 10 to show that 2^x grows faster than x^2
That was just the observation
They are both equal because they are both infinite numbers
How it basically works is he is taking the limit of x as x approaches infinity. Since infinity isn’t a number and just a concept, you can’t actually evaluate 2 to the infinity or infinity to the 2, but rather you can observe the pattern as some variable x approaches a ridiculously large number that we represent with infinity, and conclude which is larger. When he showed the graph at the end, you could see that the graph of 2 to the x grew much faster than x squared, showing that it will be larger and larger the farther you go out, and the closer you get to infinity.
@@qloxer1264this doesn't work though. He assumed both infinites grow the same (Im, of course, being hyperbolic here)
If you wanted to compare ♾² to 2^♾, you would be more correct in taking the limit as (x, y) goes to (+♾, +♾) of x²/(2^y) or (2^y)/x² or any other combination. However, none of these limits exist. Simple example, take the limit as (x, y) goes to (+♾, +♾) along the curve
y=2log_2(x)
of x²/(2^y)
This limit is equal to
lim[x->+♾] (x²/x²) = 1
It is easily shown that the limit along the curve y=x is equal to 0. Since we found 2 different curves with different limits, it means that the beginning limit does not exist.
In other words, 2^♾ can be almost anything in relation to ♾²
2^infinity would be uncountable infinity
2^inf is still countable infinity, just larger than inf^2
uncountable infinity typically refers to a series of sets, not one singular set of numbers.
@@aoyuki1409 but it represents the power set of all the natural numbers and cantors diagonal argument shows it is uncountable infinity right? correct me if i am wrong
@@hayn10 im not sure myself, but i dont think 2^infinite cantors diagonal argument. it is just 2x2x2x2x2x2x2.... forever, not 2^1 + 2^2 + 2^3 .... that would be lim x->inf (2^x) and that would be uncountable infinity
@@aoyuki1409The number of possible combinations of numbers you can get with 2 numbers, such as 0 and 1, with n being the number of numbers, in the combination is 2^n, meaning that the number of possible combinations you can get from a countably infinity number of 1s and 0s is 2^aleph0, with aleph0 being the number of integers or the only countable infinity. If you list different combinations of the 0s and 1s you find that the diagonal argument does work to prove that the number of combinations of 0s and 1s cannot be countably infinity, so the diagonal argument can be used to prove that 2^aleph0 is uncountably infinite, and 2^infinity must be at least 2^aleph0 so if 2^aleph0 is uncountably infinite than 2^infinity is necessarily uncountably infinite.
@@hayn10you are wrong. 2^♾ is meaningless. 2^א0 is a notation which represents the cardinality of the powerset of natural numbers. But this is definitelly not the same as 2^♾.
From the limit, the left one is larger(oof with needing to correct this).
From the limit, the limit does not exist. Either one can be "larger" than the other
@@methatis3013:
Both have an infinite limit regardless of context, and I am talking about the limit as x approaches infinity.
@@Inspirator_AG112 thing is, you cannot take the limit as x goes to infinity of x²/(2^x). This will give you 0, that's true. However, we are comparing ♾ to ♾. No one says these 2 need to grow the same. In order to make a rigorous argument, you would need to take the limit as (x,y) goes to (+♾,+♾) of x²/(2^y). This limit, however, does not exist. If you take the limit along the curve y=x, you get the former result which is equal to 0. However, if you take the limit along the curve y=2log_2(x), you get that the limit is equal to 1. Since you get 2 different results for the same limit, the limit does not exist.
This is a consequence of the fact that you can write down ♾ as
2*♾ = 2*log_2(♾), so 2^♾ can be written as ♾². Alternatively,
♾²=(2^♾)² >= 2^♾
This is less rigorous, of course, but I provided a more rigorous argument earlier
It’s more dependent on the context in which you see this problem. For example, in set theory, 2^infinity is technically qualitatively superior in terms of cardinality as it is a power set. Outside of bigger infinites, they are equal as in the end shown by desmos, they both ultimately reach infinity either way.
Infinity is not a concept that we can define so easily but from my perspective, by definition infinity is a number greater than all positive numbers, infinity multiplied by itself is just infinity and 2 to the power of infinity will always be a natural positive number since we are just multiplying by 2 every time so infinity is just larger.
Is it a number though? Any number you'd associate with it would be smaller and you can't write it down.
@mattoucas869 but then
The second one is inf times inf which is logically higher than 2 times inf
@@herobrine_anims Well, not really. Nothing is greater than infinity or else that would contradict its definition. I think infinity × infinity = infinity because infinity = infinity × infinity... blah blah blah maybe. Idk, I'm not a mathematician so you should ask someone else.
When I studied limit and continuity mathematics, I was taught that if I want to make a comparison of this type, the best idea is to try very large numbers with tendencies to infinity as long as they are calculable and allow it to be applied to all cases.
I checked by making a comparison between 2^1000 and 1000^2 and it turns out that 2^1000 is greater.
If we constantly raise the numerical value of the exponent of "2^1000" and compare it with the numerical value resulting from constantly raising the base of "1000^2" the first case will always be greater.
For those who are confused, the value "1000" in both cases represents infinities since when graphing and playing with infinities, you usually take very large values close to where a function tends to infinities.
So, in my opinion, without having seen the video yet, I think that 2 to the power of infinity is greater than infinity squared.
This isn't math, this is DESMOS.
sorry but thats still math
- это Красти Крабс?
- нет это Патрик
Это Красти Крабс? Нет это Патрик
what if you set infinity in the right term as 2^∞? this is also infity and in this case the right term would be larger, right?
they are both undefined as infinite has no answer.
@@Alt.Nit is still false though. If you are comparing 2^♾ to ♾², you should take the limit as (x,y) goes to (+♾,+♾) of something like x²/(2^y). This limit, however, does not exist
Man is so underrated, great video!🔥
I think you're mistaken. There is a 1-1 correspondence between the real numbers in the interval [0, 1) and the infinite cross-product Z1 x Z1 x Z1 ... (Z = {0, 1}). The former set has cardinality aleph-sub-C. There is a 1-1 correspondence between Z x Z and Z itself, which has cardinality aleph-sub-0. The rules for counting tell us that the former set should have 2^infinity elements and the latter infinity^2 elements. So, 2^infinity = alephC > aleph0 = infinity^2.
Why is he mistaken?
@@walidjabari49852 ^ infinity is the cardinality of the real number line, which is UNcountably infinite, but infinity squared is only countably infinite.
So in general, when we get a problem, which is larger 10^100 or 100^10 power, we can conclude that 10^100 power will always be larger?
And sure enough 10^100 = 1^100 while 100^10 = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,
so youre telling me that the count of infinitely many people in infinitely many lines is smaller than just infinitely many people in one line
what if the real infinity was the friends we made along the way?
It's infinitely many people in infinitely many lines in 2 dimensions vs a cube 2 people across in infinite dimensions.
@@lyrimetacurl0what is a cube 2? I understand the infinite dimensions part because that’s the exponent but does it mean 2 people across infinite dimensions
@@clowncircus-dm3fd I think 2 people across just the hypercube has a side length of 2 people
@@ef-tee so a hyper cube with side length 2 vs an infinite plane?
Technically, indeterminate.
However, in CS, O(n) is considerably smaller than O(a^n)
*O(n^2) is still smaller
I would be very worried if infinity appeared in my complexity analysis...
Thanks for this explanation.
I agree with your assessment to a point, but each of these will be infinite, furthermore I can create a 1-1 correspondence between them. So in fact they are the same infinity.
IF you think about it, nothing is larger. Its basically the same as comparing infinity to infinity. Infinity cannot be measured because its magnitude can expand... Infinitely. Infinity is not a constant unlike the ones substituted in the video, so regular concepts cannot be applied.
yes, but technicaly speaking, one infinite number can be larger than the other
you can't say that 2*infinity = infinity just because they're both infinite numbers, right?
if we divide both sides by infinity, we'll get 2*1 = 1 or 2 = 1 wich isn't right, wich means that 2*infinity is bigger than just infinity, proving that one infinite number can be larger than the other
@@superkaras588 Well, infinity is not a fixed value. So anything you add or subtract to it won't do anything, as it will still be infinity
Use monotonicity of x^1/x ... It would be a simple question
This better be a parody or something.
lim[x->∞] x^2/2^x = lim[x->∞] ln(x^2)/ln(2^x) = lim[x->∞] 2ln(x)/xln(2) = 2/ln(2) lim[x->∞] ln(x)/x = 0. Therefore what's said in the video is true
Also, if you think about it with computability theorems, ∞^2 could refer to any infinite set multiplied (cartesian product) by itself. For example N×N. Then 2^∞ could refer to any infinite sequence of pairs of elements (it has to be the same infinite as before) which is basically [a,b]^N. You could make an bijective function from N×N to {a,b}^N because that last set is a numerable union of numerable sets, therefore N×N~{a,b}^N, so if you think about it this way, what's said in the video is not true
I use N because I want to mantain coherence when going from one set to another, and 2^∞ only makes sense in the context of infinite sequences of pairs, therefore that ∞ must be numerable. Also, I assume both infinities have to be the same; if you use R×R, suddenly 2^∞ is smaller than ∞^2
One less Orthodox approach I'd like to use is thinking about 2^∞ and ∞^2 as the cardinals of infinite sets. Given an infinite set A such that |A|=∞, it's provable that ∞^2=∞ (or A×A~A), and that 2^∞ is the cardinal of the parts set of A, i.e. |P(a)|=2^∞, because for finite sets of size n, |P(a)|=2ⁿ. And it's also provable that there's no injective function from P(A) to A for any set A, therefore 2^∞ is bigger than ∞^2 in this context
As a final note, it's 6 am, I have to give a class in 1 hour and take a test in about 4 hours. I would greatly hate myself in the future for using so much brain power for this comment
Oops it seems I've made a mistake, it turns out that you cannot make a bijective function from N×N to {a,b}^N
There are four possible pairs made from {a,b}: {a,b},{b,a},{a,a},{b,b}. Let's call them in order A,B,C,D
If such bijective function exists, we can map every infinite sequence of these pairs to a natural number. So there should be a table like:
1: ABDACBDA...
2: BDABCADB...
...
Where each natural number is associated to an infinite sequence of these pairs
Then, let's say that the order of these pair is circular: B follows to A, C follows to B, D follows to C and A follows to D.
If such table exists, we can construct any sequence and it should be in the table
So let's made a sequence. For each position i in N of the sequence S, S[i]=Next(T[i,i]) where T[A,B] represents the pair in the position B of the A number of the table (so basically we use the pairs in the diagonal of the table)
Now lets make an arbitrary table:
1: ABCD...
2: BACD...
3: CBDA...
4: DABC...
With this table, our sequence would be BBAD..., which is not in the table. Moreover, if we keep adding pairs, the sequence will not be in the table, because it at least differs in one pair with the sequence in position i in the list.
So there's a sequence which is not in the list, which in theory contained all the sequences. So such list and table don't exist. Therefore there's not such bijective function. And we've proven that |N×N|
fuck yeah, i love this! abstract math at its finest
it uses a very non-abstract proof though, which is also wrong 😂
Debate of the Century.
its either 2^infinity or theyre the same
It depends on what you mean by infinity, but if you meant lim x->inf 2^x / x^2, the result goes to inf
You can also do this with limits. If you have a fraction with x squared as the numerator and 2 raised to the power x as the denominator, if the function approaches 0 as x approaches infinity then 2 raised to the power x is greater. However, if you have a fraction with 2 raised to the power x in the numerator and x squared in the denominator, if the function approaches infinity as x approaches infinity, 2 raised to the power x is larger still. Using this method, We can see that the limit of 2 raised to the power x as x approaches infinity is larger than the limit of x squared as x approaches infinity. Now the question is by how much?
Niceee, I learnt about limits this year and this is good!
From how I understand it, with your method both are countably infinite if you first restrict them to natural numbers: if you specify a certain member of an infinite set where each member is represented as 2^n or n^2 with any natural n, you can count through all the natural numbers until you reach n, and thus when n→∞, you can still count up to there, even if it takes an infinite amount of time. A bigger infinity you wouldn't be able to count up to even with unlimited time (kinda like how you can't count up from every real in-between 0.23 and 0.24 since you can simply add more digits).
Because both sets are one-to-one correspondent with the set of natural numbers, they are equally infinite. Countable infinities are considered the smallest between infinities of different sizes because they have the cardinality of natural numbers (aleph-null).
Now, since you counted them up with the set of real numbers, we can use similar logic to conclude both have the cardinality of real numbers and, thus, should be the same size.
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
I appreciate the explanation. Compared to most recent math videos on here, it is understandable and MAY be agreed with. Notice I said "may". It doesn't mean, that I agree or disagree with it.. The truth is where I was raised, we were taught not to treat the "lazy 8" symbol an individual number. Most people do, and hence the explanation in this video. Where I was brought up, the infinity symbol basically meant a value that increases without bounds. Since the exponent in increasing without bound in the first expression, and the base is in the second, there is no way to tell which value is in really higher. But since the video indicates hints that an expression with a lower base and a higher exponent. than reversing it using the same numbers (in other words the same higher exponent now the base, and the same lower base now the exponent), it appears that the first expression would be higher. The catch is as shown, the same numbers have to be experimented with each as base and exponent. If one is changed for the second expression, this could make a difference.
There is not such thing as larger or not when they are both infinitely big...
Sure.
Obviously equal. Infinity means it never stops, so no matter what configuration you choose, the result of both equations is infinity. By your explanations one should be larger than the other, but if you put actual numbers in there, they will be equally inifinite
Some infinities are bigger than others in math.
infinity^2 is countably infinite, but 2^infinity is incountably infinite (see the Wikipedia entry for Cantor's diagonal argument, for example) so they can actually be ordered (cardinal numbers etc.) Although I would be careful using the words bigger/smaller for these concepts. Also the proof in the video is wrong because it assumes infinity is a number, so you are right in that regard
Thanks for posting this. It illustrates on of great difficulties when thinking about infinities. For example, which is larger infinity or infinity + 1? Your reasoning must conclude infinity + 1. Just draw the graphs for y = x and y = x + 1
Infinity is not a number so it doesnt make sense what you are saying also. Infinity+1 and infinity will still both equal infinty in the end. That just proves you have no idea how set theory works
@@theRealMaMo it was actually the point I was trying to make. Just proves you have no idea about nuance.
Simply do it using mathematical induction /using derivative to find rate of increase
it depends on what that ∞ represents.
if that ∞ represents limit, 2^∞ > ∞^2.
lim(x→∞) (2^x)/x² = ∞.
if that ∞ represents transfinite cardinial, like Aleph0,
2^Aleph0 > Aleph0 = (Aleph0)^2
2^Aleph0 is cardinality of all real numbers while (Aleph0)^2 is still Aleph0.
if that ∞ represents transfinite ordinal, like omega,
2^omega = omega < omega².
the limit ordinal of {2, 4, 8, 16, ...} is a number that comes right after all natural numbers, which is equivalent to omega. omega² is defined as limit ordinal of {omega, omega2, omega3, ...}.
Infinity squared = infinity * infinity
2 ^ infinity = 2 ^ (2 ^ (infinity/2)) = 2^2^infinity since halfing an infinite number is still infinite, it gives you
4^infinity
If you repeat this cycles, you get
X^infinity where X goes towards infinity, which gives you
Infinity ^ Infinity which is bigger then infinity ^ 2
Logic is flawed. Infinity is not finite
Bad math video.
Either one can be bigger than the other. The only way to have a definitive answer, is within a limit. It entirely depends on how fast the infinity on the left increases relative to the infinity on the right.
If we set both uses of infinities to be x as x approaches infinity, then you do indeed get the result in the video. However, If we set the infinity on the left (I’ll notate with L) to be log2(R) (where R is the infinity on the right), L and R still both approach infinity. And yet the expression on the right hand side will be greater instead.
The biggest possible mistake is that it is assumed two infinity are equal. If not, the answer would be uncertain.
Infinity to the power of two is larger because you cant get to infinity starting with a finite number like two. Two to the power of infinity will just keep multiplying, and never get to infinity while infinity to the power of two is already infinity, meaning that infinity to the power of two is bigger.
If you repeat for infinite times you will get to infinity this is simple logic
Use more different colors in graphs, with emphasized intersection points
Take limit of x to infinity, and calculate the derivative of (2^x) / (x^2) using L'Hospital's rule. Using this method 2^x is larger, so 2^ infinity is larger
Let n approach infinity, if you multiply 2 n times, and that n approaches infinity, 2^n would also approach infinity. n squared, as n approaches infinity is also well approaching infinity. And that’s also shown on the graph, they aren’t limited upper-bound, so they will continue to increase, thus neither of them is bigger than the other one.
Alternative ways to think
1. Go through limit approach and apply L-H rule and find value of limit
2. Remember exponential always dominant with respect to polynomial
Except they both go to infinity, so they are the same.
No, when dealing with functions' limits, being able to compare infinities is important. ♾️/♾️ Could be infinity or could be 0, depending on which one's bigger. Hope this helps!
both going to infinity does not imply that they are the same.
You could transform this into a limits question, lim x--> ∞ 2^x/x^2. If answer is greater than 1 then 2^x is greater
Problem: Infinity is not a number. But if you want to use it as a number then both sides evaluate to infinity. Therefore they're equal. The only way you could show otherwise would be to show that one infinity has a higher cardinality than the other. This wan't addressed in this video. Georg Cantor showed that the number of positive integers (1, 2, 3, ...) is EQUAL to the number of infinitely dense rational numbers, even though there are an infinite number of rational numbers between any two poitive integers. Both infinite sets have the same cardinality and therefore considered equal.
It depends. Are we using ordinal exponentiation or cardinal? In the former they are equal, but in the latter they are different. (Or is infinity² larger in the former case? I don't remember...)
♾ is not an ordinal nor a cardinal
yep omega² is bigger than 2^omega.
@@BidenBlessesYou why are you assuming ♾=ω tho? Why couldn't ♾=2log_2(ω) for example? Why couldn't the first ♾ be ω and second ♾ be 2^2^ω?
@@methatis3013 I just tried to give an example of 2^∞
@@BidenBlessesYou if you consider ω to be an "infinite numebr", then so can all numbers larger than ω be considered "infinite numbers". If you set ♾=ω, you are effectively saying ω+1>♾, which is nonsensical
Personally, I'd prove the limit as x approaches infinity of 2^x/x^2
Me when continuum theorem:
Place an infinite amount of points on a circumference of a circle. Then pick any point of your choice on the circumference. Add one to that point or subtract one from that point. How far have you moved on the circumference in radians?
Add one of what? If you mean move up a different point, that would be 0 radians, since a circle is defined as all points a certain distance away from a center.
@@mistahmatrix Do you understand the concept of one? (1)? Because I can prove that 1x0=1.
@@user-ky5dy5hl4d your units arent clear. "1" is a mathematical object itself representing a set. adding 1 apple? 1 banana? 1 radian? 1 degree?
@@user-ky5dy5hl4d no, he's right, your question doesn't make sense
@@georgepetrou501 All questions make sense. Answers do not. I see you are or were a gymnast. So was I. Unless I see a crucifix.
They are both infinity, but if we talking about a countable infinity, 2^inf is larger because it starts off slower and gets really big really fast. 2^15 is 32768. And 15^2 is only 225
on if the value of x=3 in X² and 2^X
The value of X² is greater by just 1 rather than that in all the values 2^X is greater
It is a Similar question to the question in jee advanced as it was to Compare π^e and e^π
Infinity is not a number, it's a concept
very interesting video! i wish tho that you played a little bit with your proof there because going a little further you could prove that any number larger than 1 to the power of infinity is larger than the infinity to the power of any real number. Which means 1,0000000001^infinity is larger than infinity^999999999999 and that’s really fucking impressive lol.
These are both equal to infinity, what is presented in the video is more a question of limits. For example if you had (2ˣ)-(x²), after the 3rd intersection point, it would always be a positive number, meaning the first is larger. This means that as x goes to infinity, the left side grows faster than the right side, and thus would overpower it, which would make it "larger"(for any finite number, x-y is positive if and only if x>y, so this is a reasonable pattern to carry over to infinite numbers.) In calculus this can be applied more generally as things that aren't the highest degree not mattering(eg. x³ will overpower x², because 3>2.) Cool video, but the presentation of the problem is a bit misleading.
When you compare Megabit (MB) and Mebibit (MiB)
I won't split hairs about the use of infinity. I assumed that the video is about the limit. The video has a nice, reasonable start with "let's try a few exmples to get a better idea", but there is no real proof at the end.
For a real proof, you can start with the hypothesis 2^x > x^2 for x>1. Then take the natural logarithm on both sides to get x*ln(2) > 2*ln(x) or approximately x > ln(x)*2.89. It is already known that ln(x) eventually grows slower than x (that's why logarithmic amplifiers are used for signal compression). Therefore, eventually x will be larger than ln(x)*2.89, which proves the hypothesis for large enough x, in particular when approaching infinity.
Don't treat infinity like a number though, since there's a lot of rules in many equations that wouldn't work if infinity was a number. Infinity breaks the system, so it's treated instead as a concept.
Bro took"infinity war" literally
in the end they're both equal... there is no number larger than infinity
Infinity is not a number
How tf bro only have 160 subscribers
Both are the same truthfully but in a limit way its 2^inf
Well yeah my thought process tho is that, 2^infnity never ever ends you just get bigger and bigger numbers while infinity² is just infinity i think and infinity is always bigger than any number you get no matter how large, if you keep mutiplying by 2 even to the end of time
i think he is just using a weird notation to say "which goes to infinity quicker as we increase n, 2ⁿ or n²?"
This is easy, just looking at the growth 2 to the power of x will always excess the growth of x squared. So 2 to the infinity power is bigger than infinity squared. Video over
Good question... As infinity itself undefinable... Comparing two such may lead to illusion though mathematically logically true
i can define infinity
2 multiplied by itself equals infinity. Infinity squared is an unbound set of unbound sets. Largeness is not relevant when something is unbound.
It’s probably me ngl ( Im just built like that )
2^x > x^2 if x>4 so infinity is clearly higher than 4
Actually, in cardinal, 2^infinity is bigger than Infinity^2. However, in ordinal, 2^infinity is smaller.
Rule 1 = No 2 infinities are equal
But if we are comparing with same infinity
Then
limn→∞2ⁿ/n²=∞ .... Therefore 2^∞ is absolutely larger in comparison
but in in fisrt one the maximum number u can obtain is infinite, as in the second one is infinite times infinite. Not the same
Well, they're the same
Infinity isn't a number, its a concept, it just means it goes on forever
*"But bro ∞ is an unstoppable thing. So 2^∞ is ∞ and ∞² is also ∞ so both are equal. For 2^x and x², if x is finite then only we can say 2^x>>>x² (only if x is finite). But if x is ∞ they are non comparable as ∞,∞²,∞³,∞^∞,2^∞... All are equal as all tends to ∞. If u considered ∞ as a very large number then only 2^∞>>∞². But the definition of ∞ says it's an unstoppable value so all ∞,∞²,∞³,∞^∞,2^∞... Are equal"👍*
So the points cross at 0, 4, infinity and maybe (infinity-4)
In my logic if you add or substract anything or multiply or divide anything by infinity it equals infinity
Infinity can’t be treated as a number it’s a concept, there is no difference between infinity^2 and 2^infinity, this video is fundamentally wrong to even compare the two. Of course if said infinity was a number 2^n would be larger than n^2
i think he is just using a weird notation to ask which diverges quickerr
Technically they are equal
Infinity is very strange number, so it don't have to act like others. No matter, ho many times me multiply infinity, it will be infinity. So, W^2 is infinity. 2×2×2×2.... Infinity times is obviously infinity. So, 2^W is olso infinity.
W^2=2^W
It is impossible to guess which is bigger
They equal to other, greater than other and less than other at the same time
2^infinity is infinity
infinity^2 is infinity of infinities
easy
Its technically 2^infinity
If you were to replace infinity with a countable number
You’ll see that 2^(insert number) is larger than (insert number)^2
Our first question should be "what is infinity"
How about ∞^2 ?
this doesn't make any sense, how can infinity be smaller or larger?
hes just using notation for "which diverges quicker, n² or 2ⁿ"
Solving is Easier by log
If we put both of these numbers into a grid perspective infinity to the power of two is a grid in which there is and infinite line and that infinite line is repeated infinitely to the side of the infinite line but two to the power of infinity is a grid with two dots double infinitely and is two line of infinity so infinite to the power of two is bigger
Simple -1/12 = infinity, so -1/12 squared is indeed less than 2 powered to -1/12
This is exactly how I saw it with 2^10 > 10^2
2^infinity = 2^aleph-0 = aleph-1
infinity^2 = aleph-0^2 = aleph-0
WHICH ONE DO YOU THINK IT IS BIGGER? THE CARDINALITY OF THE REAL NUMBERS OR OF THE INTERGERS??
Missed the chance to make it 8^∞ vs ∞^8 😂
This shouldn’t matter I think… if infinity is involved the number is ALWAYS growing or infinity… so they both equal the same thing inherently.
I haven’t done hardcore math in a long time, but since every number is being squared while 2 is being raised to the power of every number they still encompass the same parameters… right? Even numbers smaller than 1 keep getting smaller.
This is why I SOMETIMES hate math. But mostly I love it. I makes some cool stuff
2^x > x² for x >>>
square root of infinity^2 is just infinity
and suare root of 2^infinity is 2^(infinity/2)
since infinity divided by 2 is still infinity, square root of 2^infinity > square root of infinity^2 and 2^infinity > infinity^2
Ok, I don't completely get this but doesn't the infinite hotel problem say the opposite, that inf^2 is 2nd degree of infinity? E.g. no matter how many times you multiply by 2, you still just get a really large number - infinity - but if you square this infinity, you have infinitely many infinities?
You don't have to understand this with logarithms let me clear this short way
Infinity is a thing so can't be multiplication divided
If you take this infinity as a large number then it can be minus and divided but not multiple and add because nothing can be higher than large number no it can be lower
2^infinity doesn't exist same for infinity^2
But you can do this infinity-n and z≥0/infinity :)
You can ask your class teacher does 2^infinity exist
I think infinity^2 larger, because:
2^infinity is infinitely big set of numbers, while infinity^2 is infinitely big set of infinite sets of numbers.
Put x as 3 😂
Answer is 2 power infinity