Varying Interpretations of Infinity and Mathematics as a

Universal Language
By Lukas Lopez-Jensen

Ms. Sonia Burns

December 15th, 2017

Infinity is a concept which, at its core, is one of the most complicated expressions of

mathematics. Imagining infinity is more counterintuitive than trying to visualize any finite
 1

number. While trying to picture a mole (6.022*1023) of some unit is difficult, picturing an

infinite amount of something is actually impossible, making it a part of mathematics that’s not

entirely universally understood. This explains the significant diversity that is found in cross

cultural interpretations of infinity. Based on the varying interpretations of infinity across religion,

time, and language, one can argue that mathematics is not actually the universal language it is

often cited as.

Before comparing these interpretations of infinity, however, one must understand what

infinity is. The use of infinity simply as “the largest possible number” can be traced back to the

ancient Greeks, and from the time of Aristotle to the end of the 19th century, this simple and

monodimensional view was the predominant definition of infinity. (Allen, 2003) In 1874,

however, German mathematician Georg Cantor defined infinity not only as a more concrete

concept in his Proof of Non-Denumerability, but as something that existed in multiple sizes.

Cantor’s work completely revolutionized the way people interpreted infinity, both complicating

and clarifying how we see the infinite.

Cantor’s proof of infinity was drawn from Set Theory, the basic notion that numbers can

be grouped into sets. These sets don’t require any pattern and aren’t derived from any equation:

they just exist as a constant group. When quantifying sets, it isn’t the content of the set that

matters, but the amount of numbers in them. The set [1, 2, 3] is larger than the set [6.022*1023, 7]

simply because it contains more values. This comparison can be made using solely

correspondence: we can compare 1 and 6.022*1023, 2 and 7, and 3 has no correspondence with

the second set. Therefore, the first is larger. Set 1 has a cardinality (number of variables) of 3,

while Set 2 has a cardinality of 2. However, the philosophy of set theory changes when the

cardinality of sets isn’t a countable number. For example, what would be the cardinality of a set
 2

containing all natural numbers? It would inferably be infinity, but the name of the infinity

referring to all natural numbers is Aleph Null. This is (paradoxically) the smallest infinity.

(Wilkins, 2011)

The most essential property of Aleph Null is that it’s a transferrable infinity. It can’t be

altered by adding to, subtracting from, multiplying by, or dividing by it: Aleph Null+1=Aleph

Null. This can be proven by using one to one correspondence. Given Set A, containing all natural

numbers, [0, 1, 2, 3, …] and Set B, containing all natural numbers plus one, [1, 2, 3, 4, …]

there’s a one to one correspondence that will match up indefinitely. You can compare 0 and 1, 1

and 2, 2 and 3, and so on, with neither set running out of numbers, because both contain an

Aleph Null amount. This is called Transfinite Arithmetic, and goes into even more complicated

and counterintuitive examples. For example, Aleph Null*2=Aleph Null. The set [0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2,

...] will still have one to one correspondence with the classic [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...]. This proves that

Infinity*2=Infinity. (Wilkins, 2011)

This logic expands beyond natural numbers as well. Using rational numbers, we can see

that any set without an established domain will have a cardinality of Aleph Null. This can be

explained through a table of sets, with all rational numbers with a denominator of 1 forming

columns and all rational numbers with a numerator of 1 forming rows. Note that this table would

continue to infinity in all directions.

1/1 1/2 1/3

2/1 2/2 2/3

3/1 3/2 3/3

Correspondence can be achieved here, and not only because the table will have Aleph Null

columns and Aleph Null rows. We can compare natural numbers (the original Aleph Null) to

these rational numbers.

 3

(0, 1/1) (2, 1/1,) (5, 1/3,)

(1, (4, 2/2,) 2/3

2/1,)

(3, 3/2 3/3

3/1,)
This style eventually creates diagonals where a natural number corresponds to every

rational number: the first diagonal (0, 1/1) is 1 number long, the second (1, 2/1,) (2, 1/2) is 2

numbers long, and so on, becoming equivalent to Aleph Null. Although this progresses through

rational numbers much faster than natural numbers, correspondence can be achieved because

there will always be a rational number for every natural number. Both have cardinalities of

Aleph Null. (Wilkins, 2011)

Thus proves the basic and transferable properties of Aleph Null: the countable infinity.

The next step is to find an uncountable infinity: a set that, even when given an infinite amount of

time, could not be hypothetically counted. This is Aleph 1. A set with Aleph 1 cardinality would

include all real numbers. The earlier discussed natural and rational numbers are joined by

irrational and transcendental numbers. These numbers have Aleph Null numbers after their

decimal points. Additionally, because any fraction of infinity equals infinity, we can discuss

Aleph 1 using only the numbers 1 and 2. Take sequences comprised of terms which are the digits

of real numbers, but without the decimals. For example:

Set 1: (1, 1, 1…)= .111…

Set 2: (2, 2, 2…)= .222…

Set 3: (1, 2, 1, 2…)=.1212…

Set 4: (1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2,)= .111122...

This continues indefinitely. In order to disprove that all real numbers could be represented by

sets like these, one must provide a number that is outside of this infinity. Cantor’s method of
 4

doing this was to draw diagonals, similar to those seen earlier, to characterize each set. Each set

would be represented by the number term that matches its sequence: the first term of the first set,

second term of the second set, and so on. Here, Set 1 is associated with (1), Set 2 with (2,) Set 3

with (1), and Set 4 with (1). Remember, this continues to infinity. This creates Set Diagonal,

which begins (1, 2, 1, 1…). (Wilkins, 2011)

Cantor’s next step was to invert Set Diagonal, which would here be Set 0: (2, 1, 2, 2…)

or 0.2122… which represents a real number. However, this cannot be a real number that was

earlier listed. Its first term is different from set 1’s, its second is different from set 2’s, and so on.

It’s inverted, and therefore entirely new. Set 0 is not one of the real numbers provided in this

Aleph Null sequence of sets, proving that a set of all real numbers could not have one to one

correspondence with a set of all natural numbers. The name of the set of all real numbers is

Aleph 1, suggesting that there is no set with greater than Aleph Null cardinality and less than

Aleph 1 cardinality. This was proposed by Georg Cantor in 1877 as The Continuum Hypothesis,

which is still being debated today. Amazingly, these mathematical concepts first thought of in

1874 keep their relevance and controversy into the modern day. (Wilkins, 2011)

However, the topic of debate is not whether Aleph 1 exists, but if anything can come

between it and Aleph Null. In simply defining the different types of infinity, there’s no need to

discuss it in depth. There is certainly a concept greater than Aleph Null, but is Aleph 1 the

largest? To answer this, mathematicians introduced power sets. A power set is defined as a set

including all the subsets of a given set. To put it more simply, the number 4’s power set, or {1, 2,

3, 4} will include a 4 element set, {1, 2, 3, 4} 3 element sets {1, 2, 3}, {1, 2, 4} {1, 3, 4}, {2, 3,

4} 2 element sets {1, 2} {1, 3} {1, 4} {2, 3} {2, 4} {3, 4} 1 element sets {1} {2} {3} {4} and a
 5

0 element set {}. This is 16 subsets, or 24 subsets. This happens to be a defining quality of power

sets: the power sets for any number N will contain 2N subsets. (Wilkins, 2011)

The cardinality of the power set of X will always be greater than a set with cardinality X.

(In other words, 2N>N). So, if we take a power set of Aleph 1, we have a cardinality that is

greater than Aleph 1. This is known as Aleph 2. This process never ends, as Aleph 2’s power set

is Aleph 3, and so on. This suggests that one could reach infinite Alephs, eventually coming to

Aleph Infinity, or rather, Aleph Aleph Null. (Wilkins, 2011)

However, the process of finding larger infinities will always continue. Georg Cantor

himself suggested that there could be an infinity greater than Aleph Aleph Null, greater than we

can express through numbers. This sounds remarkably like the philosophical infinity we began

with: even after all of mathematicians’ work to establish Aleph Aleph Null, there is still

something greater. By abandoning actual, measurable numbers as this research did long ago,

mathematicians have used ordinal numbers alongside these concepts to establish several

infinities greater than Aleph Aleph Null. For the purposes of cultural interpretation, however,

these infinities can simply be defined as the vague category of “post-real infinities.” The

contributions of Cantor himself become scarce after this point, but one very notable fact about

Cantor is that he suspected that this absolute, actual infinity could be God. (Wilkins, 2011)

Immediately, mathematics connects to religion. Cantor’s assumption that God could be

the actual infinity isn’t unfounded. The Christian Bible is teeming with accounts of God’s

infinity, in multiple aspects. Revelation 1:8 states “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the

beginning and the ending,’ saith the Lord, ‘which is, and which was, and which is to come, the

Almighty.’” (King James Bible) In other words, he is omnipresent, existing outside of time and
 6

with infinite life. Psalm 147:5 states, “Great is our Lord, and of great power; his understanding is

infinite.” (King James Bible) He is omnipotent and omniscient.

Suffice it to say, Christians believe that God has no end to his existence or powers. The

idea of whatever realm God inhabits is also a profound notion of infinity: somewhere outside of

space and time, with no beginning, no end, and no location. This is called The Heavens by

Christians, and in the denomination of Jehovah's witnesses, is understood to be inhabited by

God. Kings 8:43 quotes King Solomon as praying, “Hear thou in Heaven thy dwelling place.”

(King James Bible) The more common Christian interpretation is that God exists in each of his

followers, which can be explained by his existence not being confined by the space and time

separating them. (King James Bible) He could live within them in anytime and any place, (with

the assumption that Christianity will be infinite) so this explanation fits God’s infinite plane of

existence. Both interpretations suggest that God lives in a realm of infinity, showing the deep

connection that Christianity shares with the concept of the infinite.

It’s vital to note that there are relatively no Christian mentions of infinity outside of

divinity. Christians believe that only God can possess these levels of power, and the vast

majority of Biblical references to infinity are in relation to God. The Christian interpretation of

infinity is heavily characterized by how divine it is, and how inaccessible to humans it is. This is

in stark contrast to the Hindu interpretation of infinity.

Hinduism’s connections to infinity stem from both religious lore and the properties of

infinity. Transfinite arithmetic is discussed in the Yajurveda, a holy Hindu text somewhat

comparable to the Bible which also explains a bounty of mathematical properties. “From infinity

is born infinity. When infinity is taken out of infinity, only infinity is left over.” (Joshi, 1994)

Since the time of the Vedic texts, Hinduism has been deeply connected to infinity, exploring its
 7

specific properties as well as including it in the properties of the universe and the concept of

reincarnation. Alongside this advanced description of infinity, Hindu thought is commonly

intertwined with the idea that the universe was created with no boundaries, spanning an infinite

space. (Joshi, 1994) Accordingly, the belief in reincarnation comes with the idea that one has

potentially infinite lives.

These worldviews often clash with what is sometimes deemed “Western thought,” as is

well represented by an ancient Indian story. According to the story, after Alexander the Great

conquered Persia in the 4th century BCE, he met a Hindu sage while exploring India. He asked

the sage, who was simply lying on the ground, what he was doing. The sage informed Alexander

that he was experiencing nothingness. When asked in turn what he was doing, Alexander replied

that he was conquering the world. The two laughed at the other’s pointless goal. To Alexander,

representing Western thought, the sage was wasting his only life doing nothing. To the sage,

representing Hindu thought, Alexander was pointlessly trying to conquer a world that has no

limits, with an urgency that made no sense as he was living one of infinite lives. (Pattanaik,

2015)

The Yajurveda also explains reincarnation by writing, “The sun god grants bodies in

different births, according to your deeds, providing a happy or unhappy place on this earth.”

(Joshi, 1994) The process of reincarnation is said to have no predetermined end, although post-

Buddhism Hindu texts note ideas of Nirvana. Nirvana, an ultimate paradise and source of

enlightenment, is achieved when the soul in question is fully enlightened after its processes of

potentially infinite reincarnation. (Joshi, 1994) However, Hinduism commonly assumes that the

universe will be infinite and see no end.

 8

At first glance, this assumption may seem similar to the Christian Heavens, wherein

space and time see no limits and God exists as everything and nothing. However, the Christian

Heavens are not inhabited by humans: the Hindu interpretation of infinity is a much more

accessible thing than its Christian counterpart. Hindus believe that humans can access this

infinity by living within the infinite universe, while the Christian infinite universe is only

inhabited by God. Infinities that are accessible to humans continue in Hinduism through the

infinite lives provided by reincarnation, while Christians believe that humans have one finite life

to live preceeding a singular afterlife which sees no end. (King James Bible) Other than the

eternity of heaven and hell, Christianity sees virtually no humanly accessible connections to

infinity.

In conclusion, Hinduism believes that infinity is deeply intertwined with humanity, and is

essentially a basic part of life. Christianity believes that infinity is much more divine, often

suggesting that it is beyond human comprehension. These near opposite interpretations show

how differently Hindus and Christians view the mathematical concept of infinity. Between the

two religions, infinity is hardly the same concept. With this in mind, the universalness of infinity,

and mathematics as a whole, is brought into question.

Before the start and spread of Christianity to ponder notions of infinity, classical Greek

philosophers did so. One of the most prominent Greek schools of thought surrounding infinity

was fathered by Aristotle, who differentiated between a “potential infinity” and an “actual

infinity.” The potential infinity, which Aristotle interpreted as more realistic, was the idea that

infinity could theoretically be reached by adding finite fragments together for an unending period

of time. Adding a finite set of 100 to a finite set of 100 brings a set of 200, which can be

expanded to 300, 400, and so on through infinity. However, Aristotle did not believe in any
 9

intrinsically infinite numbers. The only existing infinity would be one composed of quantifiable,

finite numbers being continuously added to each other. The potential infinity could be visualized

as a ray that extends infinitely, but with the support of additional, measured line segments.

Removing one of these segments, while still resulting in an infinite value, would result in a

smaller infinity than the one previously obtained. (“Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite,” 2011)

“Actual infinity,” defined as an infinite value with a certain beginning and end, was

completely rejected by Aristotle. He believed that any completed set such as this must be

measurable, and assuming an infinite amount of values between the start and the end was

paradoxical and unprovable. With this given endpoint, one could never add more values to reach

infinity as was seen with the potential infinity. Given these assumptions, Aristotle’s views were

justified. Placing an infinite value in a finite space is certainly paradoxical, and therefore, so is an

actual infinity. It was with this logic that Aristotle defined an exclusively potential view of

infinity for centuries. This went unquestioned until the introduction of Cantor’s logic (which

essentially removed the prerequisite for start and end points) in 1847. (“Potential Infinite v.

Actual Infinite,” 2011)

Aristotle’s rejection of actual infinity was crucial to the development of thought

surrounding the concept, and he notably countered Zeno’s paradox of Achilles and the tortoise

using this logic. The paradox states that a slow moving tortoise challenges the able-bodied

Achilles to a race, on the condition that the tortoise is given a head start. For the purposes of

understanding, we can assume that the head start was 10 meters. In the time it takes Achilles to

catch up to the tortoise and travel 10 meters, the tortoise can travel an additional 1 meter,

continuing his lead. In the time it takes Achilles to travel 1 meter, the tortoise can travel an

additional 0.1 meters, continuing his lead. As Achilles travels 0.1 meters, the tortoise travels
 10

0.01, and so on, infinitely. Achilles can never catch up to the tortoise, because the race they run

is divided into infinite parts, each one smaller than the last, and Achilles can never travel the

infinite space between the starting and ending points, much less before the tortoise does so.

(Dowden, 2017)

With Aristotle’s view of a potential infinity, Achilles could easily complete the race.

Because the only existing infinity is made out of finite, measurable parts, the racing field in the

paradox is also composed of a finite number of parts. Of course Achilles can complete the race:

he only needs to run a finite distance, and the speed of the tortoise doesn’t affect the distance that

must be traveled. (Additionally, if Achilles travels at 10m/s and the tortoise travels at 1m/s, the

20m racing field could be finished by Achilles in 2 seconds and by the tortoise in 20 seconds.

This aspect of the paradox is much less relevant to infinity, but it’s notable how easily it

crumbles when certain aspects of logic are applied to it.)

Returning to Aristotle’s more general views on infinity, the strongest challenge to

Cantor’s transfinite arithmetic was the “annihilation of number,” which shows the axiom

(mathematical rule) that any real number N + Infinity=Infinity. According to pre-Cantorian

thought, transfinite arithmetic could not be considered realistic, and so all interpretations of

infinity ended before they became dependent on transfinite arithmetic. Cantor simply introduced

the idea that infinite numbers behave differently from finite numbers, as well as integrating

ordinal numbers to modify infinities. To summarize ordinal numbers, one of the previously

undiscussed infinities concerns Omega, which represents a number that is ordered after all

natural numbers. Once Aleph Null is reached, Omega follows, representing a second infinite set

in which Omega replaces 0, Omega+1 replaces 1, and so on, indefinitely. This shows an infinity

(between Aleph Null and Aleph 1) that grows linearly and is greater than a previous infinity.
 11

Ordinal infinity+N>Ordinal infinity. Therefore, the concept of annihilation of numbers is

annihilated itself. (Dauben, 1979)

This was the main point of conflict between Cantor and Aristotle’s interpretations of

infinity, and as the former disproved assumptions made by the latter, an abundance of new

possibilities were reached. It was through the disproval of the annihilation of number that Cantor

could continue his research on infinity, and as has already been discussed, this research was

extensive. By freeing the idea of Aleph Null as a feasible and realistic one, Cantor was able to

introduce ideas of set theory, power sets, Aleph 1 through Aleph Aleph Null, ordinal numbers,

and much more. It is important to note, however, that Cantor was cautious about the idea of

Actual Infinity. The idea of a starting and ending point with infinite values in between was still

beyond reality in Cantor’s research, and as a Christian, Cantor assigned actual infinity only to

God and, to a lesser extent, the Heavens. (Dauben, 1979)

In sum, Aristotle’s philosophical interpretation of infinity was limited by the idea of

annihilation of number. He believed that an infinite number would be too unrealistic to interact

with real numbers, and therefore ended his interpretation of infinity as a potential combination of

all finite numbers. Cantor disproved this using ordinal numbers, and went on to expand his

interpretations of infinity to include several values larger than Aristotle’s potential infinity. With

Cantor’s innovation, the common interpretation of infinity was turned on its head and made

much more well defined. Like language, mathematics changed over time, but with this change in

mind, it cannot be stated that math always has been and always will be understood in the same

way. Bearing this in mind, it becomes much more difficult to defend mathematics as universally

understood.
 12

It’s important to note that mathematics, like science, is perfected through trial and error

across multiple experiments (which tend to be more hypothetical in mathematics than in science)

in order to clarify what is and what is not probable. Ideas accepted thousands of years ago are

often not accepted today because they have since undergone the scientific method, and

qualifying these ancient ideas as math or science does not discredit the processes of math or

science themselves. If anything, this speaks to the beautiful quality of math and science to adapt

and change over time as new evidence is brought up, which qualifies them as some of the most

malleable and valuable tools to understanding our universe and ourselves.

That said, looking at mathematical interpretations of infinity from thousands of years ago

and comparing them to more recent ones shows a very clear discrepancy. This speaks not against

the concepts of infinity or mathematics, but rather against their universalness. If Aristotle and

Georg Cantor can define infinity as differently as they have, then infinity-and by extension, math

itself-is not universally understood.

One of the most critical aspects in determining whether math is a universal language is

through comparing lingual interpretations of math. Etymology and morphology speak volumes in

how a certain word is perceived and connotated in different languages, and the components of a

word can often be informative as to how that word is interpreted by the language it belongs to.

The way that infinity is said in different languages is vital to determining how these languages

interpret infinity, and if the same general interpretation is given by various unrelated languages,

it’s possible that cross cultural interpretations of infinity are, in some sense, universal.

A variety of different languages draw their word for infinity from the Latin “infinitum.”

Here, “in-” is a negative prefix for “finitum,” which originates from “finis,” meaning “end.”

(“Origin and Meaning of Infinity,” 2017) The Latin “no end” is adapted by Basque, Catalan,
 13

French, Galician, Italian, Maltese, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish. Each of these Romance

languages calls infinity something based on this Latin root, and English adapted this root as well.

Each of these languages would likely have a similar interpretation of infinity, because they each

use the same root word and prefix to describe it. Traveling further east in Europe, Slavic

languages have a pattern of root words “bez,” the negative prefix, and “kraj,” meaning “end.”

Beskraj is the unchanged word for infinity throughout Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian. Beskraj,

when translated, communicates the same message as infinitum, meaning that a logical

connection can be drawn between Latin-based and Slavic languages in the way they see infinity.

(Katsev, 2017)

Looking more at individual languages, German refers to infinity as “unendlichkeit.”

Broken down into the many compound words within, this roughly translates to “no end-ly-ness,”

as “un” is a negative prefix, “end” unsurprisingly means “end,” “lich” is commonly used to make

something an adjective, and “keit” is commonly used to make something a noun. Chinese

communicates infinity as “无穷,” using the characters “无” and “穷” to communicate “no” and

“limit,” respectively. The same is seen with the Japanese “無限,” in which “無” means “nothing”

and “限” means “limit.” Three more languages are added to the pool in which infinity is

essentially a lack of a limit. (Katsev, 2017)

By studying the etymologies of various languages’ words for infinity, a common and

undeniable trend is found. Infinity is widely understood as a never ending concept: something

with no limit. Based on this, the linguistic interpretations of infinity seem universal. If all of

these cultures, some of which didn’t interact with each other in the formation of their languages,

have such similar definitions of infinity, then there must be some universal aspect to its
 14

understanding. At its core, infinity is referred to in the same way around the world, and would

therefore be defined in the same way by all speakers of all languages that follow this commonly

established pattern. Contrary to time periods and religions, different languages seem to view

infinity almost identically to each other.

Based on what has been explored above, however, infinity is much more complicated

than a value that doesn’t end. The basic terminology used to refer to the broad idea of infinity

may be the same across languages, but more intricate definitions and interpretations of the

concept will tell a different story. The fact that the Ancient Greeks and 19th century Germans

could have both called infinity “a never ending value” doesn’t change the differences between

Aristotle’s potential infinity and Cantor’s transfinite arithmetic. Hindus and Christians generally

referring to a limitless concept together doesn’t change the Hindu perspective that infinity is a

part of the natural world and the human experience, nor does it change the Christian perspective

that infinity is a divine concept accessible almost exclusively to God. Terminology is important

in seeing how a certain subject or study is generally viewed, but it doesn’t change the intricacies

intrinsic to the higher levels of said subject or study. The word, “infinity” might be universally

understood, but the concept, “infinity” is absolutely not.

Infinity provides an allegory for mathematics as a whole in this sense. All cultures around

the world, if taught, can add, subtract, multiply, and divide in the same way. 4*5=20, no matter

where or when you live. At its most basic levels, it’s certainly defensible that the language of

mathematics is a universal one. However, at much higher levels of math, things aren’t as clear:

theories and hypotheses begin to contradict each other and compete for the title of most accurate.

Although arithmetic teachers around the world teach essentially the same subject in essentially

the same way, professors of theoretical particle physics around the world begin to have varying
 15

interpretations surrounding the nature of quantum fields (also known as the laws of the universe)

or the verifiability of equations attempting to explain them.

Mathematics is not a universal language at many of its advanced levels. Infinity is one of

many examples of a mathematical concept that pertains to a diverse array of schools of thought;

depending on the axioms and previous work that a given mathematician accepts, they will show

a different perspective of infinity. For example, there is a small subset of mathematicians called

“finitists,” who completely reject the idea of any infinity at all, becoming even more restrictive

than Aristotle’s interpretation of potential infinity. While finitists are generally considered by the

mathematical community to hold an inaccurate ideology, their existence as a group cannot be

ignored.

The widely accepted axioms that disprove finitism show that in some cases, mathematics

should be a universal language. There are seemingly objective guidelines that ensure that

problems are solved in a certain way, but they are not always followed. If all of these guidelines

were followed in practice, then mathematics would be a universal language. However, as the

finitists prove through their rejection of these guidelines, people disagree on how math works in

some cases. If the idea of infinity is realistic and provable to one group of people, but not so to

another, then the opposite interpretations in regards to infinity cause too much confusion for it to

be considered a universally understood subject.

As proven by finitists in the world of mathematics, Christians and Hindus in the world of

religion, and Aristotle and Cantor across time periods, infinity is not a universally understood

concept. The views of it provided by these groups are simply too different to be considered a part

of the same “language,” and considering the near impossibility of verifying which of any given

two interpretations is correct, it’s a far cry from provable to state that there is an objectively
 16

accurate way to view infinity. Even if this could be done by a universalizing axiom definitively

establishing the rules of infinity, it would be up to mathematicians and the general populous to

decide whether to speak the language that’s been established.

Works Cited:

● Allen, G. D. “The History of Infinity.” math.tamu.edu, 2003,

www.math.tamu.edu/~dallen/masters/infinity/content2.htm

● Chand, Devi, and M. C. Joshi. The Yajurveda. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt

Ltd, 1994.

● Dauben, Joseph W. “Georg Cantor: His Mathematics and Philosophy of the

Infinite.”Dartmouth Mathematics Department, Dartmouth College, 1979,

math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Cantor/Cantor.html
 17

● Dowden, Bradley. “Zeno's Paradoxes.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet

Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017, www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/.

● Katsev, Igor. “How to Say Infinity in Different Languages.” Do You Know How to Say

Infinity in Different Languages?, In Different Languages, 2017,

www.indifferentlanguages.com/words/infinity

● King James Bible. Cambridge ed., Cambridge University Press, 1900,

www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/.

● “Origin and Meaning of Infinity.” Online Etymology Dictionary,

www.etymonline.com/word/infinity.

● Pattanaik, Devdutt. “Gods of Zero and Infinity.” The Government of India's Ministry of

External Affairs, 23 Jan. 2015, www.mea.gov.in/in-focus-

article.htm?24715/gods+of+zero+and+infinity

● “Potential Infinite v. Actual Infinite.” Sites DOT Middlebury, Middlebury College, 2011,

sites.middlebury.edu/fyse1229pisapati/mathematical-work/potential-infinite-v-actual-

infinite/

● Wilkins, Alasdair. “A Brief Introduction to Infinity.” Gizmodo, Gizmodo.com, 8 June

2011, gizmodo.com/5809689/a-brief-introduction-to-infinity