Pre-retcon Amalgam Brothers discussion

Pre-retcon Amalgam Brothers = Manifastation of the Marvel- and DC continuity, staff.
The writers and editors have complete power over the comics, in other words all power or omnipotence.
So, yes, I belive they were omnipotent.

Originally posted by Galan007
In the comic world, I might be able to see some stupid shit like that being published, especially by Marvel.... (they seem to be more into the whole "greater levels of infinity" BS).

But using real logic, nothing can be greater than infinity,

I wouldn't condemn it that fast, brother G.

The idea of Two sets of Infinity they use comes straight from Science,

Now Scientifically levels of Infinity are based on distance,

so I'm not sure if Power applies.

The basic meaning for the term Infinite is:

"limitless or endless in space, extent, or size"

If any of you look up the word Infinite or Infinity,

you will realize it focuses on Space or Numbers, and nothing else.

THE Infinite is referred to as GOD.

Originally posted by Ethereal
Groups of infinity, like this:

1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 1,2,4 ...

and larger sets, like say: 9,8,1,5,0 9,8,1,5,0 9,8,1,5,0 9,8,1,5,0 ...

Kubik (Cosmic Cube) on Infinity:

This makes perfect sense.

Kosmos says,

"Infinity by it's very nature is unsurpassable."

Kubik replies,

"Consider then the Set called Whole Numbers - 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, is it not Infinite?"

Kosmos answers,

"Obviously."

Kubik retorts,

"Then consider the Set called Even Numbers - 2, 4, 6, 8 and so on, how long is it?

Kosmos responds,

"Why Infinite of course."

Kubik with wisdom,

"Half of Infinity is still Infinity, and the same would be true of the Set of Odd Numbers?

Kosmos answers,

"Of course."

Kubik explains,

"Both Sets are Infinite, and yet the Set of Whole Numbers contains BOTH Subsets,

and is therefore TWICE as Large as either Subset Alone"

Kubik finishes,

"Thus are demonstrated TWO LEVELS of Infinity,

there are of course, an INFINITE number MORE"

As does this:

Dr Strange on Infinity:

"the very Concept of Infinity is relative,

Numbers are Infinite, so are odd Numbers, yet by definition,

there are Twice as many Numbers as there are odd Numbers ...

One Infinity is included within a larger Infinity"

Originally posted by Ethereal
but what infinite groupings of numbers have to do with 'power', and where marvel got the idea of doing this in the first place is beyond me...

Marvel was giving us a Scientific Fact about the RANGE of Infinity,

not in terms of power, but vastness.

I suppose it can be applied to the grandeur of one's power. 🙂

I think what he meant Mr. M, is that in this world, our reality, it's just a theory. In comics however it's reality.

Originally posted by Thanos_THOTU
I think what he meant Mr. M, is that in this world, our reality, it's just a theory. In comics however it's reality.

Actually in the World, our reality, it's a Fact. 🙂

This is from the University of Toronto Mathematics Network:

"What is really surprising is that there are other infinite sets which do not have the same size as the set of integers! For instance, the set of all real numbers is a much bigger set.

So the "infinity" concept that describes the size of the set of real numbers is a different one from the one which describes the size of the set of integers."

http://www.math.utoronto.ca/mathnet/answers/infinity.html#1
(full explanation here)

This is from the Encyclopedia of Astrobiology Astronomy & Spacelift:

"He then demonstrated, using what has become known as Cantor's theorem, that there is a hierarchy of infinities of which aleph-null is the smallest.

Essentially, he proved that the cardinal number of all the subsets – the different ways of arranging the elements – of a set of size aleph-null is a bigger form of infinity, which he called aleph-one.

Similarly, the cardinality of the set of subsets of aleph-one is a still bigger infinity, known as aleph-two. And so on, indefinitely, leading to an infinite number of different infinities." ...

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/infinity.html
(full explanation here)

This is from the Math Forum:

"Yes, one infinity can be larger than another, a weird
kind of concept." ...

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/59138.html
(full explanation here)

It's still just theories, since neither can be proven.
They're basicly saying, Infinity * 2 >> Infinity
Or X2 >> X, where X is inifnity,

Originally posted by Thanos_THOTU
It's still just theories, since neither can be proven.

Originally posted by Mr Master
This is from the Encyclopedia of Astrobiology Astronomy & Spacelift:

"He then demonstrated, using what has become known as Cantor's theorem, that there is a hierarchy of infinities of which aleph-null is the smallest.

Essentially, he PROVED that the cardinal number of all the subsets –

the different ways of arranging the elements –

of a set of size aleph-null is a bigger form of infinity,

which he called aleph-one.

Similarly, the cardinality of the set of subsets of aleph-one is a still bigger infinity, known as aleph-two. And so on, indefinitely, leading to an infinite number of different infinities." ...

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/infinity.html
(full explanation here)

🙂

Originally posted by Thanos_THOTU
They're basicly saying, Infinity * 2 >> Infinity
Or X2 >> X, where X is inifnity,

That's not what they're saying T, it's a bit more complicated than that,

yet the answer is surprisingly simple.

The Cantor's theorem

is a scientifically accepted method of understanding the Concept of Trans-Infinite levels,

within Infinity.

Originally posted by Mr Master
🙂

That's not what they're saying T, it's a bit more complicated than that,

yet the answer is surprisingly simple.

The [B]Cantor's theorem

is a scientifically accepted method of understanding the Concept of Trans-Infinite levels,

within Infinity. [/B]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5-infinity = infinity
2, 4, 6, 8, 10-2*infinity = 2 infinity

And fact is, it cannot be proven, since no one can truley grasp the concept of infinity, it's beyond numbers.

Originally posted by Mr Master
That's not what they're saying T, it's a bit more complicated than that,

yet the answer is surprisingly simple.

The [B]Cantor's theorem

is a scientifically accepted method of understanding the Concept of Trans-Infinite levels,

within Infinity. [/B]

But one infinity cannot be greater or go on for longer, then another.

If this were true, then the smaller of the variables was never truly infinite to begin with.

Meaning, if you have 2 sets of truly infinite things, one WILL NOT go on longer then the other, otherwise the principle of infinity is defeated.

As my chemistry teacher said, is there more numbers inbetween 0-1 than from 0-infinity?

You see, funnily enough, I had a discussion with a work mate on this very subject today, as you do.

Originally posted by Thanos_THOTU
No it's as simple as that.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5-infinity = infinity
2, 4, 6, 8, 10-2*infinity = 2 infinity

And fact is, it cannot be proven, since no one can truley grasp the concept of infinity, it's beyond numbers.

Originally posted by Galan007
Infinity can start at higher and lower points, so you might refer to it as being greater in that way.

But one infinity cannot be greater or go on for longer, then another.

If this were true, then the smaller of the variables was never truly infinite to begin with.

Meaning, if you have 2 sets of truly infinite things, one WILL NOT go on longer then the other, otherwise the principle of infinity is defeated.

It's Scientific, not a comic book restricted idea:

Originally posted by Mr Master
This is from the Encyclopedia of Astrobiology Astronomy & Spacelift:

"He then demonstrated, using what has become known as Cantor's theorem, that there is a hierarchy of infinities of which aleph-null is the smallest.

Essentially, he PROVED that the cardinal number of all the subsets –

the different ways of arranging the elements –

of a set of size aleph-null is a bigger form of infinity,

which he called aleph-one.

Similarly, the cardinality of the set of subsets of aleph-one is a still bigger infinity, known as aleph-two. And so on, indefinitely, leading to an infinite number of different infinities." ...

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/infinity.html

🙂

Originally posted by Mr Master
It's a Scientific Thoerem, not a theory or comic book restricted idea:

Let's say Infinity (A) started at -500,000

And infinity (B) started at +500,000

Now assume both of these values could not only go on for the rest of infinity, but that they began moving forward at the same rate.

Infinity (B) will perpetually be the larger number, because it started out with a greater value.

But this still doesn't change the fact that if they are both truly infinite variables, one of them could never "outstretch" the other.

Or, as I said before, the smaller of the two was never truly infinite to begin with.

Infinity = Infinity. 🙂

Back to topic, shall we?
What can be more powerful than avatars of the two most powerful comic companies in the world.
The writer/editor are omnipotent to the characters on the paper, so is the brothers, no?

Originally posted by Galan007
Infinity = Infinity.

I think I'll stick to Cantor's Scientific Theorem on the matter. 🙂

Encyclopedia of Astrobiology Astronomy & Spacelift:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/infinity.html

Essentially,

he PROVED that the cardinal number of all the subsets –

the different ways of arranging the elements –

of a set of size aleph-null is a bigger form of infinity.

It's pretty cut and dry, if you're interested in undertsanding how,

there's alot more, visit and read.

But you can't expect me to accept your speculative idea on the matter, using simplistic equations to define something that practically gave rise to Calculus. 😛

Originally posted by Mr Master
I think I'll stick to Cantor's Scientific Theorem on the matter. 🙂

Encyclopedia of Astrobiology Astronomy & Spacelift:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/infinity.html

Essentially,

[B]he PROVED that the cardinal number of all the subsets –

the different ways of arranging the elements –

of a set of size aleph-null is a bigger form of infinity.

It's pretty cut and dry, if you're interested in undertsanding how,

there's alot more, visit and read.

But you can't expect me to accept your speculative idea on the matter, using simplistic equations to define something that practically gave rise to Calculus. 😛 [/B]

A scientific theory is completely different from a hypothesis

Originally posted by Mr Master
I think I'll stick to Cantor's Scientific Theorem on the matter. 🙂

But you can't expect me to accept your speculative idea on the matter, using simplistic equations to define something that practically gave rise to Calculus.

I was using "simplistic equations" to make things easily understandable for everyone.

No need to overcomplicate something like this. 🙂

If you would have responded to my whole post, you may have realized that I already stated one infinity can start at a higher point than another infinity, thus making it perpetually the larger variable.

But one infinity does not go on for longer then another,

Or again, the smaller of the two was never truly infinite to begin with. 😬

Originally posted by Galan007
Theorems = 100% fact now?

Are they more fact than theories? ✅

Originally posted by Galan007
I was using "simplistic equations" to make things easily understandable for everyone.

No need to overcomplicate something like this.

No doubt,

but your system was not disputing Cantor's Theorem in anyway.

A complicated method is used to understand the different levels of Infinity.

It can't be oversimplified, just like Calculus can't be simplified. 🙂

Originally posted by Galan007
If you would have responded to my whole post, you may have realized that I already stated one infinity can start at a higher point than another infinity, thus making it perpetually the larger variable.

This has nothing to do with the method used by professional acclaimed Scientists,

to PROVE there are larger forms of Infinity.

Originally posted by Galan007
But one infinity does not go on for longer then another,

Or again, the smaller of the two was never truly infinite to begin with.

This doesn't relate to the argument of,

"different levels of Infinity" ...

I thought that was the debate at this point.

AGAIN:

Encyclopedia of Astrobiology Astronomy & Spacelift:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/I/infinity.html

Essentially,

he PROVED that the cardinal number of all the subsets –

the different ways of arranging the elements –

of a set of size aleph-null is a bigger form of infinity.

You must be missing the he PROVED part. 🙄

Theorems don't equate to indisputable proof.

Don't you understand that?

Theorem:

1 : a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions

2 : an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory

You see?

Though it may be accepted by some as truth, a Theorem is not infallible by far. 🙂