Some Mathematicians Don't Believe in Infinity
Most mathematicians gave infinities a wide berth until the end of the 19th century. They were unsure of how to deal with these strange quantities. What results in infinity plus 1—or infinity times infinity? Then the German mathematician Georg Cantor put an end to these doubts. With set theory, he established the first mathematical theory that made it possible to deal with the immeasurable. Since then infinities have been an integral part of mathematics. At school, we learn about the sets of natural or real numbers, each of which is infinitely large, and we encounter irrational numbers, such as pi and the square root of 2, which have an infinite number of decimal places.
Yet there are some people, so-called finitists, who reject infinity to this day. Because everything in our universe—including the resources to calculate things—seems to be limited, it makes no sense to them to calculate with infinities. And indeed, some experts have proposed an alternative branch of mathematics that relies only on finitely constructible quantities. Some are now even trying to apply these ideas to physics in the hope of finding better theories to describe our world.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Set Theory and Infinities
Modern mathematics is based on set theory, which, as the name suggests, revolves around groupings or sets. You can think of a set as a bag into which you can put all kinds of things: numbers, functions or other entities. By comparing the contents of different bags, their size can be determined. So if I want to know whether one bag is fuller than another, I take out objects one at a time from each bag at the same time and see which empties first.
That concept doesn't sound particularly surprising. Even small children can grasp the basic principle. But Cantor realized that infinitely large quantities can be compared in this way. Using set theory, he came to the conclusion that there are infinities of different sizes. Infinity is not always the same as infinity; some infinities are larger than others.
Mathematicians Ernst Zermelo and Abraham Fraenkel used set theory to give mathematics a foundation at the beginning of the 20th century. Before then subfields such as geometry, analysis, algebra and stochastics were largely in isolation from each other. Fraenkel and Zermelo formulated nine basic rules, known as axioms, on which the entire subject of mathematics is now based.
One such axiom, for example, is the existence of the empty set: mathematicians assume that there is a set that contains nothing; an empty bag. Nobody questions this idea. But another axiom ensures that infinitely large sets also exist, which is where finitists draw a line. They want to build a mathematics that gets by without this axiom, a finite mathematics.
The Dream of Finite Mathematics
Finitists reject infinities not only because of the finite resources available to us in the real world. They are also bothered by counterintuitive results that can be derived from set theory. For example, according to the Banach-Tarski paradox, you can disassemble a sphere and then reassemble it into two spheres, each of which is as large as the original. From a mathematical point of view, it is no problem to double a sphere—but in reality, it is not possible.
If the nine axioms allow such results, finitists argue, then something is wrong with the axioms. Because most of the axioms are seemingly intuitive and obvious, the finitists only reject the one that, in their view, contradicts common sense: the axiom on infinite sets.
Their view can be expressed as follows: 'a mathematical object only exists if it can be constructed from the natural numbers with a finite number of steps.' Irrational numbers, despite being reached with clear formulas, such as the square root of 2, consist of infinite sums and therefore cannot be part of finite mathematics.
As a result, some logical principles no longer apply, including Aristotle's theorem of the excluded middle, according to which a mathematical statement is always either true or false. In finitism, a statement can be indeterminate at a certain point in time if the value of a number has not yet been determined. For example, with statements that revolve around numbers such as 0.999..., if you carry out the full period and consider an infinite number of 9's, the answer becomes 1. But if there is no infinity, this statement is simply wrong.
A Finitistic World?
Without the theorem of the excluded middle, all kinds of difficulties arise. In fact, many mathematical proofs are based on this very principle. It is no surprise, then, that only a few mathematicians have dedicated themselves to finitism. Rejecting infinities makes mathematics more complicated.
And yet there are physicists who follow this philosophy, including Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva. He hopes that a finite world of numbers could describe our universe better than current modern mathematics. He bases his considerations on the idea that space and time can only contain a limited amount of information. Accordingly, it makes no sense to calculate with infinitely long or infinitely large numbers because there is no room for them in the universe.
This effort has not yet progressed far. Nevertheless, I find it exciting. After all, physics seems to be stuck: the most fundamental questions about our universe, such as how it came into being or how the fundamental forces connect, have yet to be answered. Finding a different mathematical starting point could be worth a try. Moreover, it is fascinating to explore how far you can get in mathematics if you change or omit some basic assumptions. Who knows what surprises lurk in the finite realm of mathematics?
In the end, it boils down to a question of faith: Do you believe in infinities or not? Everyone has to answer that for themselves.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Geographic
3 hours ago
- National Geographic
Rat kings might actually be real—but it's nothing to laugh about
A rat king displayed at the University of Tartu Natural History Museum in Estonia. Some have claimed that the phenomenon in which rats become entangled by their tails is just a hoax but experts say there's reason to believe it's real. Photograph by Oleksandr Rupeta, Alamy Stock Photo This phenomenon is when a pack of rats become entangled by their tails, unable to separate themselves. We asked experts to weigh in on whether it is really possible. Since at least the 1500s, people have been mesmerized by the legend of a so-called 'rat king.' Usually depicted as a mass of a rodents with their tails tied in a knot, the specific details can vary by the telling. In some stories, the group is led by one rat that directs the rest, perhaps with psychological powers, while in others, the whole group works together, like some kind of amalgamated monster. In one version or another, the rat king—which can refer to the whole group of animals, or simply the dominant rat—is an idea that has appeared in all forms of pop culture. But is there any truth to the rat king legend? Some experts have argued that historical rat king 'discoveries' could have been hoaxes—although they couldn't rule out the possibility that such a thing is physically possible. Meanwhile others are convinced. (How rats became part of city life.) Limited Time: Bonus Issue Offer Subscribe now and gift up to 4 bonus issues—starting at $34/year. 'The rat king is not a legend,' argues Andrei Miljutin, curator at the University of Tartu Natural History Museum in Estonia, in an email. 'In contrast to gods and humanoids, everyone can see and study rat kings at museums in different countries. Two of them are housed in the very building where I am writing this message.' However, Miljutin, who says rats are his favorite animal and that he somewhat fell into studying rat kings, stresses that the discovery of one is nothing to celebrate. 'Indeed, it is a death sentence. The animals suffer from permanent pain. They cannot move around normally to find food and water, and what is worse, they are helpless,' he says. As rats scramble over one another, their tails can become entangled. Above, a miniature sculpture by 19th century netsuke artist Ikkan depicts five rats in a ball. Photograph by Heritage Art/An illustration of a rat king drawn by German physician M. B. Valentini in 1714. Tales of rat kings date back at least to the 1500s. Photograph by Interfoto/Alamy Stock Photo In a 2007 study published in the journal Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Miljutin found that, before 2005, there were 58 rat king sightings he deemed reliable, though just six of these were preserved in museums. Interestingly, some common themes emerged. With the exception of one rat king documented on the island of Java in Indonesia, all the rat kings were from the same species—the black rat, or Rattus rattus. Most were identified in Germany, France, Poland, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and findings often seemed to coincide with spates of cold weather. (Carolina the giant rat retires as a hero after saving many lives.) Therefore, Miljutin concluded that rat kings are most likely to occur in areas where both cold winters and black rats are found. As for how the tails of the rats became entangled, it seems true rat kings are not a result of knotting, but rather the product of some other sticky material. In one case Miljutin investigated in South Estonia in 2021, he says, 'the knot of tails looked like a large ball due to the incorporation of a mixture of clay soil, poultry manure, straw, and feathers.' Interestingly, those rats were still alive by the time Miljutin got to them. This makes him one of the very few people known to have seen a living rat king phenomenon in person. The local news channel even captured video of the 13 tangled-up black rats—all young rats of both sexes. How rat kings could happen As an urban rodentologist of more than 30 years—who has even been described as 'the rat king of New York' himself—Bobby Corrigan has come across this legend more than once. 'I have been asked in the press multiple times about rat kings, and I always reply I have not personally witnessed it in my long career,' says Corrigan, who spent 16 years teaching at Purdue University and is now a consultant for RmC Pest Management Consulting. But after reviewing Miljutin's evidence, Corrigan says he's convinced. 'For sure, it is real, but it is rare,' he says, 'or at least rare to us humans. Maybe not to the long-tailed rats of the world.' (Is it time to finally ban glue traps in the U.S.?) There are also several aspects of rodent behavior and anatomy Corrigan has seen firsthand that align with what would be necessary to create a rat king. 'Rats have a behavior where they all get together in very tiny spaces in walls and ground burrows. It's called hugger-muggering,' says Corrigan. 'They all get really close together to exchange body heat, because they don't hibernate.' Similarly, Corrigan says rat tails are composed of cartilage, which makes them very flexible, and many rat species use their tails to curl around branches to provide some extra grip. However, rat tails cannot be tied into a knot, he says. Finally, while he finds it unlikely any trapped rodents would obey a master and function as one, rats do establish hierarchies, similar to primates or canines. 'Often there will be a dominant male that mates with all the females and keeps a territory,' says Corrigan. 'So, is there a dominant rat in the area where there is a social structure, and could you call that rat 'king'? Yes.' While rats and rat kings might seem frightening—especially as they're portrayed in pop culture—Corrigan says he takes a different point of view. 'We probably owe 20, maybe 30, additional years to our own [life expectancy] to rats,' he says. 'We've tested every single cancer drug in the world on them, every pharmaceutical, and we continue to do so.' 'These animals are a tremendous benefit to humankind,' says Corrigan.
Scientific American
a day ago
- Scientific American
Some Mathematicians Don't Believe in Infinity
One question has preoccupied humankind for thousands of years: Do infinities exist? More than 2,300 years ago Aristotle distinguished between two types of infinity: potential and actual. The former deals with abstract scenarios that would result from repeated processes. For example, if you were asked to imagine counting forever, adding 1 to the previous number, over and over again, this situation, in Aristotle's view, would involve potential infinity. But actual infinities, the scholar argued, could not exist. Most mathematicians gave infinities a wide berth until the end of the 19th century. They were unsure of how to deal with these strange quantities. What results in infinity plus 1—or infinity times infinity? Then the German mathematician Georg Cantor put an end to these doubts. With set theory, he established the first mathematical theory that made it possible to deal with the immeasurable. Since then infinities have been an integral part of mathematics. At school, we learn about the sets of natural or real numbers, each of which is infinitely large, and we encounter irrational numbers, such as pi and the square root of 2, which have an infinite number of decimal places. Yet there are some people, so-called finitists, who reject infinity to this day. Because everything in our universe—including the resources to calculate things—seems to be limited, it makes no sense to them to calculate with infinities. And indeed, some experts have proposed an alternative branch of mathematics that relies only on finitely constructible quantities. Some are now even trying to apply these ideas to physics in the hope of finding better theories to describe our world. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Set Theory and Infinities Modern mathematics is based on set theory, which, as the name suggests, revolves around groupings or sets. You can think of a set as a bag into which you can put all kinds of things: numbers, functions or other entities. By comparing the contents of different bags, their size can be determined. So if I want to know whether one bag is fuller than another, I take out objects one at a time from each bag at the same time and see which empties first. That concept doesn't sound particularly surprising. Even small children can grasp the basic principle. But Cantor realized that infinitely large quantities can be compared in this way. Using set theory, he came to the conclusion that there are infinities of different sizes. Infinity is not always the same as infinity; some infinities are larger than others. Mathematicians Ernst Zermelo and Abraham Fraenkel used set theory to give mathematics a foundation at the beginning of the 20th century. Before then subfields such as geometry, analysis, algebra and stochastics were largely in isolation from each other. Fraenkel and Zermelo formulated nine basic rules, known as axioms, on which the entire subject of mathematics is now based. One such axiom, for example, is the existence of the empty set: mathematicians assume that there is a set that contains nothing; an empty bag. Nobody questions this idea. But another axiom ensures that infinitely large sets also exist, which is where finitists draw a line. They want to build a mathematics that gets by without this axiom, a finite mathematics. The Dream of Finite Mathematics Finitists reject infinities not only because of the finite resources available to us in the real world. They are also bothered by counterintuitive results that can be derived from set theory. For example, according to the Banach-Tarski paradox, you can disassemble a sphere and then reassemble it into two spheres, each of which is as large as the original. From a mathematical point of view, it is no problem to double a sphere—but in reality, it is not possible. If the nine axioms allow such results, finitists argue, then something is wrong with the axioms. Because most of the axioms are seemingly intuitive and obvious, the finitists only reject the one that, in their view, contradicts common sense: the axiom on infinite sets. Their view can be expressed as follows: 'a mathematical object only exists if it can be constructed from the natural numbers with a finite number of steps.' Irrational numbers, despite being reached with clear formulas, such as the square root of 2, consist of infinite sums and therefore cannot be part of finite mathematics. As a result, some logical principles no longer apply, including Aristotle's theorem of the excluded middle, according to which a mathematical statement is always either true or false. In finitism, a statement can be indeterminate at a certain point in time if the value of a number has not yet been determined. For example, with statements that revolve around numbers such as 0.999..., if you carry out the full period and consider an infinite number of 9's, the answer becomes 1. But if there is no infinity, this statement is simply wrong. A Finitistic World? Without the theorem of the excluded middle, all kinds of difficulties arise. In fact, many mathematical proofs are based on this very principle. It is no surprise, then, that only a few mathematicians have dedicated themselves to finitism. Rejecting infinities makes mathematics more complicated. And yet there are physicists who follow this philosophy, including Nicolas Gisin of the University of Geneva. He hopes that a finite world of numbers could describe our universe better than current modern mathematics. He bases his considerations on the idea that space and time can only contain a limited amount of information. Accordingly, it makes no sense to calculate with infinitely long or infinitely large numbers because there is no room for them in the universe. This effort has not yet progressed far. Nevertheless, I find it exciting. After all, physics seems to be stuck: the most fundamental questions about our universe, such as how it came into being or how the fundamental forces connect, have yet to be answered. Finding a different mathematical starting point could be worth a try. Moreover, it is fascinating to explore how far you can get in mathematics if you change or omit some basic assumptions. Who knows what surprises lurk in the finite realm of mathematics? In the end, it boils down to a question of faith: Do you believe in infinities or not? Everyone has to answer that for themselves.
CNBC
5 days ago
- CNBC
Pandemic darlings Moderna, BioNTech are now on two different paths
The Covid-19 pandemic turned Moderna and BioNTech into household names almost overnight. Now the two companies are on different paths. Both Moderna and BioNTech helped pioneer mRNA, or messenger RNA, technology. Moderna staked its entire identity around mRNA, while BioNTech saw it as one piece of a broader portfolio focused on immunology and oncology. The pandemic gave both companies a chance to prove mRNA's promise of using the body's own immune system to protect against viruses or treat diseases. Covid vaccines have generated roughly $45 billion in sales for each company, earning them each about $20 billion since their rollout in late 2020. But despite parallel booms after the pandemic, the vaccine makers have since taken their businesses in different directions — and Wall Street has noticed. The two companies have spent their Covid vaccine windfall differently: Moderna doubled down on its mRNA pipeline, while BioNTech used the money to do deals and diversify, including into one of the hottest emerging areas of cancer drugs. Today, Moderna has about $8.4 billion in cash; the German-based BioNTech has €15.9 billion (or $18.2 billion). The divergence of the two companies is even more stark in their stock performance. Over the past year, Moderna shares have slid about 72%; BioNTech shares have gained nearly 29%. "Just their name was made based off the pandemic and the vaccines that they very quickly brought to people around the world to help get us through that period of time," said Evercore ISI analyst Cory Kasimov. "But the approach they're taking now and the outlook for these two companies is distinctly different at this point." Investors will get a fresh look at both companies' performance as they post quarterly results in the coming days. Moderna is set to report Friday morning, followed by BioNTech on Monday morning. Moderna used its Covid cash to build out its mRNA portfolio, particularly vaccines. It invested in shots for flu, RSV and lesser-known viruses like cytomegalovirus and norovirus. "From our perspective, the pandemic really showed that the science of what we're doing worked, and the natural sort of response to that was to continue down that path and do more," said Moderna President Stephen Hoge. Funding such a large pipeline wasn't cheap. The company has started slashing expenses as sales of its Covid vaccine slide and its RSV vaccine struggles to find a foothold. But the clock is running, said Leerink analyst Mani Foroohar. "We're moving into a time where being a vaccine company is going to be more expensive, tedious and onerous," Foroohar said, citing changes at the Food and Drug Administration under the leadership of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has expressed skepticism about vaccines. Foroohar in 2022 pointed out what he saw as a Shakespearean tragic flaw in Moderna's business model. That shortcoming, in his view, is that Moderna scaled its pipeline assuming mRNA technology would be the tool for all problems instead of a solution for some problems. Hoge said Moderna's "really good at making mRNA medicines" and decided to focus on doing that. "The reality is that we think over the last 10 years, that focus has actually made us successful, and in the pandemic, it certainly had a big impact and obviously was something that sets us up for the more diverse pipeline we have right now," Hoge said. "So we recognize that we may be going through some cycles, but we're pretty confident in the long-term trajectory we're on, and we're looking forward over the years ahead to showing with all these additional medicines what we're really capable of." Meanwhile, BioNTech decided to use the proceeds from its Covid vaccine to diversify. Out of the limelight as partner Pfizer took the lead on selling the companies' shot, BioNTech expanded into promising new cancer technologies. Most importantly, it acquired a bispecific antibody targeting the proteins PD-L1 and VEG-F. That technology promises to build on – and possibly best – the success that Merck has found with Keytruda, a cancer drug with nearly $30 billion in sales last year alone. That thesis still needs to be proven in large, global clinical trials, but BioNTech is already seeing that deal pay off. Bristol Myers Squibb in June announced it would pay up to $11 billion to partner with BioNTech to codevelop the experimental drug, which BioNTech acquired for a fraction of that. BioNTech in 2023 initially paid Biotheus $55 million up front to license the drug outside China before acquiring the company outright earlier this year for up to $1 billion. "[BioNTech] found an asset, they developed it, and then they got a pharma partner, it's like a dream," said BMO analyst Evan David Seigerman. "So they're really strategic in that, and I think they're adding a lot of diversification, which makes the story a lot less risky if you're just focused on mRNA, vaccines and Covid, and that's super risky, in my view." At the same time, hopes are high that BioNTech's bispecific antibody drug will work, meaning any disappointment ahead could hurt the stock. Investors are watching forthcoming Phase 3 trial results from Summit Therapeutics, which is testing a similar drug for lung cancer. Those data could help — or hurt — BioNTech's stock while it awaits data from its own studies, which could take until 2028. For Moderna, investors want to see if sales of its Covid and RSV vaccines can rebound. The company is also seeking FDA approval for an mRNA flu shot. But at this point, the most intense focus is on Moderna's Phase 3 trial for a personalized cancer treatment for melanoma, said RBC Capital Markets analyst Luca Issi. Moderna may be able to share the first interim data as soon as next year, Hoge said, though the company can't promise an exact date since it's an event-driven study. That means enough people in the trial need to relapse before Moderna can analyze whether its treatment kept cancer from returning longer. If the treatment succeeds, it could launch in 2027 or 2028, Hoge said. That leaves Moderna largely dependent on its vaccines until then. An ongoing patent dispute over Moderna's Covid-19 shot could also eat into the company's cash, analysts say, adding they expect the legal proceedings to play out next year. Time will tell whether the divergent strategies win over Wall Street long term.
