Absolute Infinite

related topics
{math, number, function}
{theory, work, human}

The Absolute Infinite is mathematician Georg Cantor's concept of an "infinity" that transcended the transfinite numbers. Cantor equated the Absolute Infinite with God.[1] He held that the Absolute Infinite had various mathematical properties, including that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object[citation needed].


Cantor's view

Cantor is quoted as saying:

Cantor also mentioned the idea in his letters to Richard Dedekind (text in square brackets not present in original):[5]

A multiplicity is called well-ordered if it fulfills the condition that every sub-multiplicity has a first element; such a multiplicity I call for short a "sequence".


Now I envisage the system of all [ordinal] numbers and denote it Ω.


The system Ω in its natural ordering according to magnitude is a "sequence".
Now let us adjoin 0 as an additional element to this sequence, and place it, obviously, in the first position; then we obtain a sequence Ω′:

0, 1, 2, 3, ... ω0, ω0+1, ..., γ, ...
of which one can readily convince oneself that every number γ occurring in it is the type [i.e., order-type] of the sequence of all its preceding elements (including 0). (The sequence Ω has this property first for ω0+1. [ω0+1 should be ω0.])

Now Ω′ (and therefore also Ω) cannot be a consistent multiplicity. For if Ω′ were consistent, then as a well-ordered set, a number δ would correspond to it which would be greater than all numbers of the system Ω; the number δ, however, also belongs to the system Ω, because it comprises all numbers. Thus δ would be greater than δ, which is a contradiction. Therefore:

The system Ω of all [ordinal] numbers is an inconsistent, absolutely infinite multiplicity.

The Burali-Forti paradox

The idea that the collection of all ordinal numbers cannot logically exist seems paradoxical to many. This is related to Cesare Burali-Forti's "paradox" that there can be no greatest ordinal number. All of these problems can be traced back to the idea that, for every property that can be logically defined, there exists a set of all objects that have that property. However, as in Cantor's argument (above), this idea leads to difficulties.

More generally, as noted by A.W. Moore, there can be no end to the process of set formation, and thus no such thing as the totality of all sets, or the set hierarchy. Any such totality would itself have to be a set, thus lying somewhere within the hierarchy and thus failing to contain every set.

Full article ▸

related documents
Category (mathematics)
Real line
Regular space
Alternative algebra
Partial fractions in integration
Algebraic number
T1 space
Euler's criterion
Stirling number
Dyadic rational
Syntactic sugar
Decision problem
Intersection (set theory)
Cayley's theorem
Magma computer algebra system
Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula
Polynomial time
Heaviside step function
CLU (programming language)
Magma (algebra)
Nowhere dense set
Separated sets
Dublin Core
Borel-Cantelli lemma
Double negative elimination