Can we run out of numbers?

[bobbydazzler]

Might sound daft but.....think of about it. Two objects moving apart, away from each other, could do so forever....and be infinitely far apart. The distance wouldn't be 'capped' by running out of numbers to express the distance! But..... the same idea only reversed i.e. where two objects move towards each other surely would never meet? But we know they do! so do they run out of distance? out of numbers?

[sddsddean]

But if they started infinately far apart, they would never meet. You could always move them father away from each other for their starting point. Thats the fun thing about infinity!

[Drafty]

No.

[Gef]

It might sound daft and it does. The two objects meet when there is no distance between them and we have a number to describe it - zero!

[fraserjim]

Des O.Connor never runs out of numbers

[bobbydazzler]

c'mon all you thinkers! Gef reckons we have a number to express 'no distance' i.e. zero. There is, in theory, no such thing Gef. Take any given number (or distance if you want) and keep on halving it, or divide by two and you'll do that for infinity....you'll never reach zero!

[xyzzyplugh]

This is a polite answer, not meant to demean bobbydazzler but to help balance the argument; Who says you got to keep halving it? [your distance]. Distance shortening doesn't happen by halves, it's a gradation, acceleration or de-celeration. Also, the biggest named number, a googol, say; you just add 1 and you got a bigger number already. However, if you Did keep halving, [or doubling] you would express your bigger numbers 'to the power of' until, say, a googol to the power of a googol and onwards infinitely adding more powers, we will run out of life before numbers. Or have i misunderstood your question or did you get trapped in a paradigm? :-)

rsvp

[Gef]

"Take any given number (or distance if you want) and keep on halving it, or divide by two and you'll do that for infinity....you'll never reach zero!". That is very true bobbydazzler but totally irrelevant.

[jenstar]

I thought the highest named finite number was Graham's Number? Which is very very big.

[bobbydazzler]

...and this is a polite reply. 1> Questions and their responses should not be, nor suspected of being, demeaning. That is the whole point of this great website. 2> OK....I say you gotta keep dividing any given distance by 2. 3> It does look like you've misunderstood my question....and if I am trapped I'm certain you'll know the way out. 4> Why is it irrelevant Gef? Thats exactly the point!!

[Gef]

OK, lets suppose we have to keep dividing by 2. Eventually the distance between the objects will be smaller than the smallest particle and so the objects will be in contact. If you want proof watch the World Snooker Championship on BBC - the balls actually hit each other.

[bobbydazzler]

(Sigh)....I know they do Gef, but doesn't anyone else find this fascinating? That distance between those snooker balls, before they collide, will be a zero followed by a decimal point, followed by a bloody long, long number....but it'll still be a number no matter how infinitely small !!!

[ukkid76]

No all you are doing with the dividing a number with two is avoiding zero you will never get to a decimal point because you will never get to zero the bigger the number equals the smaller the distance to zero basic maths, for example when you take say 20 feet from 20 feet you get to zero like the snooker balls do when they eventually hit each other there are no big numbers involved at all it's all in your head you are not thinking logically bobbydazzler !!!!!!