Division by zero is not allowed because it yields something undefined. It’s not a number. It’s not precise. It was excluded, and math became cleaner.

Now here’s the speculation: maybe infinity is the same kind of mistake. A non-number that gets treated like a number, smuggled in under symbols like “…” or phrases like “for all.”

What if most mathematical paradoxes come not from infinity, but from this style of reasoning? The part where we go from:

“for any natural number k”
to
“for all natural numbers”

without acknowledging that something changed.

The idea

Let's add precision.

We don't reject any number. Any size. Any density. But we define the data more precisely before we start reasoning. Once you choose a bound k, you can’t introduce anything beyond it inside the same proof. That’s it.

Maybe call this the Precision Discipline.

It’s not minimalism. It’s not rejection. It’s just: pick your set of assumptions and stick to them without using undefined non numbers which later may be reversed to something else.

Where this shows up: Cantor’s diagonal

The classic diagonal argument says: list all binary sequences. Flip the nth bit in the nth row. You get a new sequence not in the list. Infinite sets are uncountable. Done.

But here’s the problem:

You have a list of sequences of length k.
Your new diagonal sequence tries to reach digit k+1.

With precision discipline you can’t do that. You're only allowed to talk about sequences up to length k — not bring in data that wasn't part of the assumptions.

So the paradox doesn’t happen. You never construct the anti-diagonal sequence. The argument halts, not because math broke, but because it respected the bound.

Russell's paradox

It disappears if we apply precisions discipline. When you work with non-numbers (like infinity), contradiction naturally arises. We can't define "all" with precision. What does "all" even mean? It's infinite — it's not a number, it's not precise, it's vague.

Maybe such paradoxes could be avoided — and everything else kept — if we tried to be more precise and avoided using non-numbers.

A tiny example: escape the paradox, keep the result

Suppose we want to prove: "There is a prime number greater than any given number k."

Normally, we say: “for all k, there exists a prime p > k.” And we might feel the need to appeal to some set of all primes.

But under precision discipline, we rephrase:

For any given k,

...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments