Yes. Ultimately there's a flaw I won't speak of, but you can argue it.
Take the largest space possible, the entirety of the known universe. Imagine the smallest particle possible, say a quark.
Let one quark stand for one, and let us imagine a number of other quarks that represent zero, such that together they make up the representation of a very large number.
If we then fill the known universe with those zero quarks, such that there is no room for any more, then that number (not of the quarks, but of what they represent) would be the largest number possible. If the universe held but seven quarks, that would be 1,000,000.
As you can see, the actual number would be vast beyond comprehension.
(Now finick with it, and show ways of expressing larger numbers with that methodolgy, but you can see nevertheless there'd be a finite end.)
No; there are infinitely many rational numbers.
It was presumably proven when it was discovered that there were infinitely many counting numbers. However, whoever it was, did not consider the mathematical possibility with practicality. The universe has a finite life. Within that our solar system is finite. People, in their turn, have finite lives. In a finite life you can only "dial" a finite number of digits. therefore, you can only call a number if it has a finite number of digits. For any finite number of digits, there are only a finite amount of phone numbers. So, having infinitely many telephone numbers is no use if you need to wait an infinite amount of time (longer than you'll live) for the first person to call you!
A finite set has a finite number of elements, an infinite set has infinitely many.
'Finite' is the antonym of 'infinite'. 'Infinite' literally means 'not finite'.
Euclid (c. 300 BC) was one of the first to prove that there are infinitely many prime numbers. His proof was essentially to assume that there were a finite number of prime numbers, and arrive at a contradiction. Thus, there must be infinitely many prime numbers. Specifically, he supposed that if there were a finite number of prime numbers, then if one were to multiply all those prime numbers together and add 1, it would result in a number that was not divisible by any of the (finite number of) prime numbers, thus would itself be a prime number larger than the largest prime number in the assumed list - a contradiction.
All real numbers are finite. Infinity is not a number.All real numbers are finite. Infinity is not a number.All real numbers are finite. Infinity is not a number.All real numbers are finite. Infinity is not a number.
Infinitely. but then how can it be a finite line?
Finite.
Except in very basic cases you cannot. Any table can be converted to a sequence of numbers, which might include gaps. Then following from Wittgenstein's Finite Rule Paradox every finite sequence of numbers can be a described in infinitely many ways and so there are infinitely many possible relationships - some simple, some complicated but all equally valid.
A single number, such as 1531513 does not define a sequence. Furthermore, according to Wittgenstein's Finite Rule Paradox every finite sequence of numbers can be a described in infinitely many ways and so can be continued any of these ways - some simple, some complicated but all equally valid.
Finite, no.
Very. Infinitely, to be exact. The world is full of infinity. With a finite area. Amazing.