Because of our last unit and the discussions it incited about infinity I was fascinated

by the concept and its application in our work, however, I wanted to learn more about it
and its properties. I found my explorations to be the perfect format for further research, as
I found a multitude of very interesting videos about the subject. For each of the two videos,
How To Count Past Infinity and The Opposite of Infinity, I explored the concepts they
discussed and then wrote a synopsis of each discussing what I learned, what I was still
confused about, what I was inspired by, and what I wanted to learn next about the subject.

Video Review/Reflection: Vsauce, How To Count Past Infinity, (23 mins)

When searching for interesting videos about infinity on youtube, I found this
one from the page Vsauce about counting past infinity. This is something that I had
never before heard about although I knew there were different sized infinities. As I
knew, infinity isnt a number, but a whole kind of numbers with unending amounts
which can be bigger or smaller than other infinities. This difference was defined
mathematically in the video as Ill explain, however, I had trouble with this concept
logically and materially. How can an unending amount be more that another
unending amount if they both never stop? Well it turns out that although both are
unending, one can be greater than the other which was proved by Cantors
diagonalisation argument in 1891 which addresses the fact that there are
uncountable sets which cannot be put in one to one correspondence with infinities
of natural numbers.
Numbers that quantify a tangible amount are known as cardinal numbers,
and the first number after such quantifiable value is the smallest infinity, known as
aleph null. The is the infinity we conventionally discuss in class, and cannot be
changed by adding more, even more aleph nulls. However, once weve reached such
a large value, when we want to count past aleph null on our number line I learned
that I have to use ordinal numbers. These values label things in order past aleph null
starting with omega, continuing to omega + 1 which isnt different than omega but
simply comes after, and so on. These concepts were harder for me to understand
because they dont deal with something I can imagine in my head. I can imagine five
pumpkins, I can imagine endless pumpkins, but its much harder to think about
omega past alpha null pumpkins.
However, our ability to count past infinity doesnt stop with ordinal numbers,
in fact, thats just a tiny fraction of the amount we can count past aleph null. The
video taught me that next I would use power sets of aleph nulls which is a set
containing all possible sets and therefore larger than one of the smaller aleph null
sets since it will always resist a one to one correspondence with the naturals. Our
ability to continue counting to infinitely larger and larger values continues as we can
take power sets of other power sets which in turn are larger and larger.
These rules are very different from those in science, which is dependent on
the world around us and to a larger scale the universe. Mathematics changes what
we deem as reality, and the axiom of infinity is one such example which
conceptually has been present for thousands of years, but was recently created as an
axiom in 1908 by a German scientist when he decreed the infinite set of all natural
numbers. These axioms created by mathematicians allow us to do a number of
things, and in fact, the axiom of replacement is our next step in being able to count
further down the number line since it decrees that one can take a set and replace
each element with something else to create another set. This allows us to make
whatever jumps we want to larger numbers using pre-existing sets and the ones we
create until we have reached omega1 which comes after every single order type of
aleph null things, and in turn we can square to make omega x omega and so on.
This process continues until we have reached a kind of wall in the number
line called an inaccessible cardinal, a number so big no amount of replacing can
reach it equivalent to alpha null it its ability to be larger than any quantifiable
number. The jump from nothing to aleph null is like the jump from infinity to an
inaccessible value. This value is so massive, and so far past infinity on the number
line that its possible that someday science will never find a use for something so
large. The video raised this concept, and its amazing if you think about it since
human mind may have created something greater than the universe can contain!
I found this video extremely fascinating, and the summary of the content Ive
given you continued to amaze me as I wrote it. This is the kind of math that truly
makes your brain hurt when you try to materialize the values. You cant! Although
this video answered many of my questions about our ability to count past infinity, it
raised many more including if any of this applies to negative infinity? whether this
math has any real world applications at all? And if one day, even in math classes,
infinity could seem small compared to the values discussed? Despite their channel
name, I found Vsauces video to be informative and conceptually stimulating, as it
certainly helped me further understand infinity.
Video Review/Reflection: Numberphile, The Opposite of Infinity, (15 mins)

Once I had learned about the largest values that exist, it seemed fitting to research
the opposite of infinity which turns out to be the smallest thing ever (not in the sense of
negative numbers). These miniscule values are called infinitesimals, and are greater than
zero but smaller than all real numbers. This concept is very controversial, and although its
been around for thousands of years, many mathematicians today still dont recognize the
values. Although it makes intuitive sense that a value can exist wedged between zero and
all other reals, its similarly confusing to infinity mathematically since there can always be
something smaller. Additionally, its extremely hard to find real world applications of the
concept, although Numberphile was able to find some.
Infinitesimals have been used for hundreds of years for an alternative solution to
derive the area of a circle. This method creates extremely slim triangles stretching from the
center of a circle to the outer circumference, with a small margin for error since there will
obviously be a tiny sliver between the base of the triangle and the circle's circumference.
This margin for error can be controlled since it is decreased when you create more and
more triangles which are in turn smaller and smaller in size. This margin for error is
therefore infinitesimal since it exists, but can be manipulated to be so small you cant
quantify it and therefore its smaller than the set of reals. To derive the area, you next take
the chain of triangles and unravel them so the first creates a right angle with the base and
as you continue they get more and more stretched along the hypotenuse. Once this is
complete you can simply solve, since we know the base which is the circle's circumference,
and the heights which is its radius.
In the 17th century, the famous Newton and Leibniz separately used infinitesimals
to derive the area under a curved line when they were discovering calculus. They applied
the concept to the scenario by creating thin sliver like rectangles stretching from the
ground to the curve. The small space at the top inevitably not included in the rectangles
were the infinitesimals, and similarly to the circle example, they were ignored in the
calculation, since they could always make thinner rectangles and reduce the margin for
error but never quite reach zero. Newton later got rid of infinitesimals because of a new
idea of his called limits which would get thinner and thinner approaching zero just as
infinitesimals do.
The concept of the opposite of infinity, or the infinitesimal, was not used in
mathematics again until the 1960s when Abraham Robinson worked out a system where
you use them. His theory could not have been created until the 20th century since it
required mathematics done earlier in the 1900s. Robinson added these infinitesimals into
the set of real numbers which he called non standard analysis and used to solve problems
using a system of numbers called hyperreals. All of the rules of the reals still applied to
these hyperreals, although they contain the infinitesimals. Say you have two numbers, x
and y, which are infinitely close to each other, because of their relationship x - y would
create an infinitesimal. This relationship doesnt exist in the real set, only in the hyperreals.
Although I prefer Vsauces method of explaining the concept of counting past
infinity, I think that Numberphiles video about the opposite of infinity was extremely
intriguing. It definitely furthered my understanding of infinity and other mathematical
concepts like it in a concise manner while still giving historical context for the findings. I
was still slightly confused about the differences between infinitesimals and Newtons limits
and wish that he had elaborated on it. Other than that however, he taught the material in a
quick and effective manner, and I now understand a whole new mathematical concept. One
thing I was wondering while watching is if infinitesimals were what we were talking about
in class with the principle of halving ones distance to the wall and never really reaching it
although you might touch it. Overall, I think infinitesimals are a powerful concept which
should be completely recognized in mathematics.
Explore Math #3 -- February 6, 2017
Nautilus, The Deceptions of Luck

Luck is a subjective concept. You may feel like it dictates your life or its better for
some people than others, but in reality, its simply a figment of our imagination. This idea is
exactly what The Deceptions of Luck from the STEM magazine Nautilus is about, as
mathematics professor David J. Hand explains that luck is simply a human construct. He
defines luck as the human tendency to attach a value to the outcome of chance, as we read
into occurrences that are simply mathematical probabilities. This article caught my eye
because although I wouldnt consider myself superstitious, I do believe in ones ability to be
lucky, and I wanted to know how the concept stood in a logical and mathematical sense. I
think that Hands article was captivating because he explained the ideas in a very
applicable sense used everyday examples to contextualize his points.
Hand discusses the idea that chance favors the prepared mind, since one cannot
change chance, but can manipulate and prepare for it. The law of truly large numbers,
which states that with a sample size large enough, any outrageous thing is likely to
happen, is an example of this point. Since we can dramatically improve chance by in
something like a raffle even if the probability of success is still very small, we are effectively
manipulating luck. To take this example one step further, if you bought a raffle ticket for
hundreds of raffles you can nearly guarantee your luck despite the fact that the chance of
success for each individual raffle is unchanged, therefore creating your own good luck. The
key to taking advantage of your own luck is simple, giving chance the opportunity to
produce an outcome in your favor. If this is successful, Hand argues, you will be more
outgoing which will in turn cause you to try more things and have more opportunities to
have good luck again in a self reinforcing cycle.
Afterall, however, luck is simply chance viewed through the minds eye. This reality
becomes obvious if you look at any situation that is beneficial for some people and harmful
to others. Although the same event occurred for both people, they could easily view it as
either good or bad luck depending on their perception of it. Chance will always exist in our
fundamentally unpredictable world, but when we think about the outcomes of chance and
relate them to our lives, we interpret them essentially in an attempt for our minds to find
meaning in a meaningless universe. I thought this last conclusion was profound and more
importantly, made sense. Afterall, a robot wont get down on itself for producing an
ineffective product, but instead itll be included in calculations as a margin of error. But
since we as humans have a capable and curious mind, we try to read into random instances
as good or bad luck. This has been true since the creation of mankind, as people seek
religion and other rituals in an attempt to improve their luck. In reality though, the bad luck
they were experiencing was created by their own minds. This concept is truly eye opening
and will certainly change the way I think about the concept of luck and label events in my
life accordingly.