Mageth

Which came first, an infinite number of chickens or an infinite number of eggs?

What you would have if you broke all those eggs, BTW, is one infinitely large mess, or one helluva omelette if you had an infinitely large skillet to cook it in.

Tenek

Maybe, maybe not. If each egg is half as large as the previous one you would have a finite omelette, and possibly a very small one at that.

Mageth

Ever tried breaking a teeny weeny egg? You'd have to have a teeny weeny skillet with a teeny weeny edge to break it on. And it's hard keeping those teeny weeny chickens in a coop...they sneak out the cracks.

ImGod

So, if god makes an infinite omelet from an infinite number of eggs with an infinite amount of cheese, would he create an immovable object that would require an unstoppable force to move when he's on the throne?

Amedeo

You are asking a question about eggs -- eggs that can be eaten (and thus destroyed), and eggs that can be laid by chickens.

Now I see that you have been receiving a lot of answers already, about IMAGINARY EGGS, called UNITS, which you could not possibly eat or destroy. You can wish them out of existence, just as you can wish more units into existence, but certainly these creations and annihilations have no bearing on your hungry stomach. (The answers you have been receiving are BESIDES the point. You did not ask a question about mathematical units. So, why do people confuse eggs with mathematical units? By what twisted process of the mind does one feed on mathematical units when he is hungry?)

Let's talk about eggs.

We have already granted that if we have some definite number of eggs, we can either increase or decrease the number. If we have an infinity of eggs, why should not it be possible to increase or decrease the infinity -- by either a chicken laying more eggs or by someone eating some eggs?

If by "the infinite number of eggs" you mean all the eggs that exist, may exist, and have existed, then you are referring to an infinity, but you are not talking about all the presently existing eggs. The abstract infinity includes all the eggs that have been eaten and all the eggs that may be laid in the future; so, it would make no sense to say that you can add one egg to the infinity of eggs, or you would remove one egg from the infinity of eggs.

So, how can one destroy the infinity of eggs? By destroying all existing eggs, destroying the possibility of future eggs, and destroying the fact of past eggs.

Certainly you cannot destroy the fact that eggs have existed. But what has existed [no matter how many eggs] is NOT the infinity of eggs: the class of eggs that have existed does NOT include existing and future eggs. (An infinity of eggs can exist only in time; those that have existed does not constitute the infinity. So, the inability to destroy a finite number of eggs does not amount to a lack of abity to destroy the infinite number of eggs. If you destroy all egg-layers, the infinity of eggs has come to an end. This kind of destruction is impossible for the infinity of mathematical units, because such units may be laid -- created -- by any mathematical mind in the future. But then one may destroy mankind to stop the actualization of all possible units, that is, the conceiving of units. )

There is another way of destroying an infinity of apple-things or silk-things or gold-things. Take a single apple and keep on mincing it into halves. If the mincing goes on forever, the infinity of the mincing process implies an infinity of parts. So, in infinite time [which you can only envision], the sum of the infinite parts = 1 apple, (To repeat: the sum of the envisioned infinity of parts; or: the sum of the parts as the partitioning proceeds to infinity, equals 1. If you don't qualify your speech, you'll talk nonsense.) You may choose a different kind of partitioning and say, for example that the sum of these decimals, 0.9999999999...., as the partitioning is conducted in infinite time, equals 1.

Now, while an infinity of parts consists of all the actuals parts of the apple into which you have subdivided it plus all the envisioned possible parts, IF YOU EAT THE WHOLE apple, you have destroyed an infinity.

If you reduce eggs and apples to arithmetical units, there is no way you can destroy an infinity.

Tenek

I believe you are the only person so far to interpret the OP as referring to actual eggs, as opposed to using eggs as an analogy to ask a question about infinite sets.

If you have an infinite number of eggs, then you can eat any finite number and the egg count won't change.

If you can't have an infinite number of eggs, then everything below your second paragraph is moot.

untermensche

But we are talking about real eggs. Real matter that takes up real space.

Not imaginary fractal particles.

You can always have infinite imaginary items.

Amedeo

The OP refers to actual eggs; the concepts of breaking, destroying, and the like (eating, etc.) are meaningless in mathematics. So, I read the tyext LITERALLY; other people, such as Philo Judaeus, read the Bible and other texts FIGURATIVELY (allegorically; metaphorically) -- for which there is no reason, except wanting to wash away the errors of the Bible.

Furthermore, you said,
If you remembered what I had written, you could have quoted me:
No, no; "remembering" is the wrong word. So, I will rephrase:

If you had understood my text that you read, you would have seen equation of two meanings meanings in these two statements:

and
In conclusion,
you misunderstood the OP of this thread
and
you misunderstood my response post.

ughaibu

If space is infinite, there's no problem.

Nialler

If I have an infinite number of eggs and I break 0.999999999999 eggs, how many have I left.

Just askin'.