and if you take the derivative of infinity you get zero so that was point less
big ain't it![]()
no need for introspection
to be proved or disproved
be water and it all becomes clear![]()
peeeeeas![]()
and if you take the derivative of infinity you get zero so that was point less
you can't do that on the internet!.... wait yes you can do it again!

Infinity is not a number, it's not constant, and you cannot take it's derivative. You can take the derivative of a function which is unbounded. It could be 0, like the case of f(x) = ln(x), or it could be infinity still, like in the case of g(x) = x^2.
well actually infinity's derivitive is zero what is y= infinity it is a line and the derivitive of a line is 0
you can't do that on the internet!.... wait yes you can do it again!

define infinity, mathematically.
well ok
limit of 1/x as x approches 0
or
x = x+1
you can't do that on the internet!.... wait yes you can do it again!

If x = x + 1, then 0 = 1. Then you have a trivial ring, i.e. only one element, at best. The integers are an integral domain, which implies they are a ring.
Taking the derivative of your other idea would be:
lim h->0 lim x->0 ( (1/(x+h)) - (1/x) ) / h. That would reduce to (h*h)/(x*x + x*h). Since h and x are completely not related at all, we don't know which one converges towards zero faster. The derivative will actually change depending on which one does. In the case of 1/x, the derivative is -1/(x*x), so lim x->0 means the derivative will diverge towards minus infinity. You would need to pick a sequence that approaches zero, too.
The actual definition in terms of a sequence, is that
If for all a in the real numbers, if there exists a k such that the sequence x_n > a for all n > k, then that sequence diverges to infinity.
Bookmarks