Imagine being the first one being killed on any of these tracks.
The probability of that is…?
Mathematicians tell me, please, because my mind is breaking.
It’s 0. I mean someone has to be the first, but betting on any particular person to be the first will necessarily be a losing bet.
But what if I know Steve’s first and bet it’s Steve?
Then you’re legally obligated to give me half your earnings.
I think on the bottom you have to be the zeroth, but typically the first person tied to the track would be the first, so if the first is at 1 they’re safe since there’s an infinity (a large infinity even) before them and there’s only one tram that can hit one person at a time
It’ll take infinite time just to start hitting
deleted by creator
fossilesque you’re one of my fav posters
ilu2 :)
Hold the lever halfway so the trolley picks both rails at the same time, to ensure highest possible kill comboq
That’s effectively just the bottom track, where an uncountable number of people (literally) will die as soon as the train reaches position (0.
Practically no one dies on either path, since a tram is a real thing it can’t traverse infinities of people (which notably have among their mandatory elements mass and volume) very well. It would hardly get far. Its automatic braking would stop it in any case.
Whatever happens infinities of people still remain which exceeds the carrying capacity of our observable universe
Not with that attitude :3
First, I start moving people to hotel rooms…
Some infinities are bigger than other infinities
Is this actually true?
Many eons ago when I was in college, I worked with a guy who was a math major. He was a bit of a show boat know it all and I honestly think he believed that he was never wrong. This post reminded me of him because he and I had a debate / discussion on this topic and I came away from that feeling like he he was right and I was too dumb to understand why he was right.
He was arguing that if two sets are both infinite, then they are the same size (i.e. infinity, infinite). From a strictly logical perspective, it seemed to me that even if two sets were infinite, it seems like one could still be larger than the other (or maybe the better way of phrasing it was that one grew faster than the other) and I used the example of even integers versus all integers. He called me an idiot and honestly, I’ve always just assumed I was wrong – he was a math major at a mid-ranked state school after all, how could he be wrong?
Thoughts?
It is true! Someone much more studied on this than me could provide a better explanation, but instead of “size” it’s called cardinality. From what I understand your example of even integers versus all integers would still be the same size, since they can both be mapped to the natural numbers and are therefore countable, but something like real numbers would have a higher cardinality than integers, as real numbers are uncountable and infinite. I think you can have different cardinalities within uncountable infinities too, but that’s where my knowledge stops.
Hilbert’s Paradox of the Grand Hotel seems to be the thought experiment with which you were engaged with your math associate. There are countable and uncountable infinities. Integers and skip counted integers are both countable and infinite. Real numbers are uncountable and infinite. There are sets that are more uncountable than others. That uncountability is denoted by aleph number. Uncountable means can’t be mapped to the natural numbers (1, 2, 3…). Infinite means a list with all the elements can’t be created.
It’s pretty well settled mathematics that infinities are “the same size” if you can draw any kind of 1-to-1 mapping function between the two sets. If it’s 1-to-1, then every member of set A is paired off with a member of B, and there are no elements left over on either side.
In the example with even integers y versus all integers x, you can define the relation x <–> y = 2*x. So the two sets “have the same size”.
But the real numbers are provably larger than any of the integer sets. Meaning every possible mapping function leaves some reals leftover.
Weeeell… not really. It’s pretty well settled mathematics that “cardinality” and “amount” happen to coinciden when it comes to finite sets and we use it interchangeably but that’s because we know they’re not the same thing. When speaking with the regular folk, saying “some infinities are bigger than others” is kinda misleading. Would be like saying “Did you know squares are circles?” and then constructing a metric space with the taxi metric. Sure it’s “true” but it’s still bullshit.
Two sets with infinitely many things are the same size when you can describe a one to one mapping from one set to the other.
For example, the counting numbers are the same size as the counting numbers except for 7. To go from the former set to the latter set, we can map 1-6 to themselves, and then for every counting number 7 or larger, add one. To reverse, just do the opposite.
Likewise, we can map the counting numbers to only the even counting numbers by doubling the value or each one as our mapping. There is a first even number, and a 73rd even number, and a 123,456,789,012th even number.
By contrast, imagine I claim to have a map from the counting numbers to all the real numbers between 0 and 1 (including 0 but not 1). You can find a number that isn’t in my mapping. Line all the numbers in my mapping up in the order they map from the counting numbers, so there’s a first real number, a second, a third, and so on. To find a number that doesn’t appear in my mapping anywhere, take the first digit to the right of the decimal from the first number, the second digit from the second number, the third digit from the third number, and so on. Once you have assembled this new (infinitely long) number, change every single digit to something different. You could add 1 to each digit, or change them at random, or anything else.
This new number can’t be the first number in my mapping because the first digit won’t match anymore. Nor can it be the second number, because the second digit doesn’t match the second number. It can’t be the third or the fourth, or any of them, because it is always different somewhere. You may also notice that this isn’t just one number you’ve constructed that isn’t anywhere in the mapping - in fact it’s a whole infinite family of numbers that are still missing, no matter what order I put any of the numbers in, and no matter how clever my mapping seems.
The set of real numbers between 0 and 1 truly is bigger than the set of counting numbers, and it isn’t close, despite both being infinitely large.
I side with you, though the experts call me stupid for it too.
if for all n < infinity, one set is double the size of another then it is still double the size at n = infinity.
I know it seems intuitive but assuming that a property holds for n=infinity because it holds for all n<infinity would literally break math and it really doesn’t make much sense when you think about it more than a minute. Here’s an easy counterexample: n is finite.
You’re not stupid for it. Since it makes sense.
However, due to the way we “calculate” the sizes of infinite sets, you are wrong.
Even integers and all integers are the same infinity.
But reals are “bigger” than integers.
Change the numbers to rubber balls with pictures of ducks or trains and different iconography. You can now intuit that both sets are the same size.
An infinite amount of people on the track implies that the track is infinitely long. If that is not the case and the track is a normal length then the sudden addition of all that bio-mass in a finite space will cause a gravitational collapse. But will the collapse start on the first track or the second? Either way I hope you saved your game because you might lose your progress.
The mass of dead bodies is what replenishes the new living ones on the finite track.
The infamious theory of infinitly-expanding train track in porportion with train-travelled distence sequared by prof. buttnugget
Q.E.D.
Good to know there are roughly 6 real numbers for every integer
If there are child real numbers then you can fit more.
I use the lever to kill the train driver.
Multilane drifting!
I would pull the lever and then steal a bus and knock the trolley off of the track, killing the least amount of people possible.
Actually… this means there are infinite people so:
Let X be the number of people killed = (-infinity)
As infity is defined :
infinity + X = infinity
infinity + (-infinity) =
infinity - infinity = infinty
So no people would have died black guy pointing at his head meme
Desnt work when they’re different classes of infinity.
The first one, because people will die at a slower rate.
The second one, because the density will cause the trolley to slow down sooner, versus the first one where it will be able to pick up speed again between each person. Also, more time to save people down the rail with my handy rope cutting knife.
I don’t think we want a world where there are any sort of infinity of people, and I don’t think a tram is the solution to revert a world from having its infinities to having a finite number
I also see practicality problems in tying even a small infinity of people to railway tracks, as that requires yet another infinity of people to hold people down, and another infinity of people people to do the tying (as well as the infinities of people to do the tying and holding on the other track) and all of those people will have to be fed and watered with infinite amounts of food and water (some infinities of people for infinite time), the infinities of people tying people down would need some education, implying infinite teachers
It’s a logistic nightmare
If the next person getting tied down holds down the person currently being tied down then this could work. I’m sure they’d be game so that’s fine.
either way infinite people die, just not getting involved
I remember seeing a science show on PBS where the presenter explained how there are different infinities by using set theory and the integers/reals. That was mind-blowing at the time.
