- 5,576
- 3,606
being infinitesimal is different from being infinitely larger.
as in the case of being larger than something we both can still measure their sizes in a way
but when something is referred to as infinitesimal they refer to it as being so small it is non-measurable
So when you say something like
4-D construct and let's say its size is
L,W,H,T
and Length Width and Height are all infinite
and T is a spacetime/time dimension with infinitely stretching future
We have a measure for it in 4D size as it occupied an insignificant space in the space between the dimension
Now if we assume 50 universes
We can assign them to coordinate the space they occupy but they are all 4D within an insignificant 5D space between dimensions (or void)
If one says they are infinitely larger than this 50 universe it could mean 2-A or whatever standards put it right now because it makes itself only large in the lowest infinite (countable infinity)
But if one says these 50 universes are infinitesimal. They refer to them being so small to be considered non-measurable (in this context if a size is 50 and you are considered infinitely larger than it. 50 is still a reference point of its measurement but if you say infinitesimal you make it so that the 50 is insignificant enough to be even considered as measurement for it)
The clear difference here is that the context of words despite being identically referring to infinities
one refers to a stronger meaning of being non-measurable while one just being larger enough to make it significantly small
So yeah if one still treats low 2-C structures are Infinitesimal or non-measurable that still qualifies as being infinitely powerful or low 1-C
en.wikipedia.org
TLDR : infinitesimal have far different context than infinitely large to be equated
as in the case of being larger than something we both can still measure their sizes in a way
but when something is referred to as infinitesimal they refer to it as being so small it is non-measurable
So when you say something like
4-D construct and let's say its size is
L,W,H,T
and Length Width and Height are all infinite
and T is a spacetime/time dimension with infinitely stretching future
We have a measure for it in 4D size as it occupied an insignificant space in the space between the dimension
Now if we assume 50 universes
We can assign them to coordinate the space they occupy but they are all 4D within an insignificant 5D space between dimensions (or void)
If one says they are infinitely larger than this 50 universe it could mean 2-A or whatever standards put it right now because it makes itself only large in the lowest infinite (countable infinity)
But if one says these 50 universes are infinitesimal. They refer to them being so small to be considered non-measurable (in this context if a size is 50 and you are considered infinitely larger than it. 50 is still a reference point of its measurement but if you say infinitesimal you make it so that the 50 is insignificant enough to be even considered as measurement for it)
The clear difference here is that the context of words despite being identically referring to infinities
one refers to a stronger meaning of being non-measurable while one just being larger enough to make it significantly small
So yeah if one still treats low 2-C structures are Infinitesimal or non-measurable that still qualifies as being infinitely powerful or low 1-C
Non-measurable set - Wikipedia
In mathematics, a non-measurable set is a set which cannot be assigned a meaningful "volume". The mathematical existence of such sets is construed to provide information about the notions of length, area and volume in formal set theory. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, the axiom of choice entails that non-measurable subsets of �exist.
TLDR : infinitesimal have far different context than infinitely large to be equated
