TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

The infinite-pixel screen

36 pointsby lispythonabout 10 years ago

12 comments

ianamartinabout 10 years ago
There&#x27;s a really good book by David Foster Wallace called Everything and More: A Compact a history of Infinity that traces the origin of the concept and the numerous difficulties the idea faced before becoming more or less accepted as it is today. Highly recommended if you like reading or math.<p>Interstingly, Wallace takes a similar attitude towards those not keen on the details of the Math. There are large swaths where he basically says, &quot;skip this if it makes your head hurt, you won&#x27;t be missing any of the story.&quot;<p>@refrigerator, some of us come from all kinds of different backgrounds and didn&#x27;t study this in school and wouldn&#x27;t know anything at all about it if not for books like the one I mentioned above. Who knows? Perhaps Butterick has sparked an interest in some typographer who&#x27;s never thought about the concept.
tedsandersabout 10 years ago
I&#x27;m wondering... can&#x27;t you map all infinite binary strings to all positive integers? If the rightmost digit is the 1s column, the next rightmost digit is the 2s column, and so on, you&#x27;re just enumerating all possible positive integers. And each time you double (or quadruple) your pixels, you add one (or two) digits in front, getting bigger and bigger integers. But this always stays in the set of integers, which is countable. Am I missing something here? To me, this bijection makes it clear that you&#x27;ll get a countable number of pixels with a countable number of doublings.
评论 #9230281 未加载
评论 #9230276 未加载
malandrewabout 10 years ago
<p><pre><code> Bijection is a simple idea. But it’s an im­por­tant tool be­cause it helps keep us out of the coun­ter­in­tu­itive weeds when work­ing with in­fi­nite sets. For in­stance, we can now fig­ure this out: are there more pos­i­tive in­te­gers {1, 2, 3, ...} or even in­te­gers {2, 4, 6, ...}? The naive an­swer would be that there must be more pos­i­tive in­te­gers, be­cause the set of pos­i­tive in­te­gers in­cludes both the even and odd integers. But this is wrong. Us­ing bi­jec­tion, we see that we can put the pos­i­tive in­te­gers and even in­te­gers into a one-to-one cor­re­spon­dence like so: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 2, 4, 6, 8, ... </code></pre> Couldn&#x27;t you also reason that there are more even integers than positive integers if you start with the notion that you start with a number and start counting in the direction(s) of the defined set:<p><pre><code> X---&gt; 1, 2, 3, 4, ... ..., -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, ... &lt;--X--&gt; </code></pre> The set of all integers progresses along two vectors with each &quot;count&quot; and only positive increases along a single vector with each count.
评论 #9230433 未加载
评论 #9230352 未加载
评论 #9230343 未加载
aguynamedbenabout 10 years ago
This guy is awesome. He has an online book about typography that convinced me stop typing 2 spaces after periods: <a href="http://practicaltypography.com/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;practicaltypography.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #9230439 未加载
rtpgabout 10 years ago
Just a guess, but I&#x27;m pretty sure that if you have a totally-ordered set (like in your infinite pixel screen, dictionary order on first coordinate followed by second), and all subsets S = {x&#x2F; a&lt;=x&lt;=b } are countably infinite, then the set is countably infinite.<p>A constructive proof of this is probably doable by inspiring oneself off of Hilbert&#x27;s hotel paradox (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Gran...</a>)
评论 #9230098 未加载
SamReidHughesabout 10 years ago
I think the followup at the end is wrong, unless I&#x27;m misreading. Originally all lines at coordinates k&#x2F;2^n were drawn and the points not on those lines form an uncountable set (also, between any two points a line we drew is separating them). Then at the end the intermediate representations are counted, which is a completely different thing. An infinite binary tree has countably many nodes and uncountably many paths, yes. The article was fine the way it was.
评论 #9230350 未加载
评论 #9230394 未加载
评论 #9230204 未加载
xtrumanxabout 10 years ago
&gt; You could take an item out of both bags un­til you ex­hausted the sup­ply of one bag. If the other bag was si­mul­ta­ne­ously empty, then you’d know they had the same car­di­nal­ity.<p>Well, since you can&#x27;t exhaust the supply of an infinite supply of integers, I don&#x27;t see how using this method is acceptable when trying to find a one-to-one correspondence.<p>I feel like I may be missing something so would appreciate if someone could chime in.
评论 #9242109 未加载
deevusabout 10 years ago
I thought for a second that he was going to be able to prove infinite pixels to me, until his argument made no mention of diagonality. It makes me think of the paradox &quot;all horses are brown&quot;[0]. It was entertaining though.<p>[0]: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_horses_are_the_same_color" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;All_horses_are_the_same_color</a>
HZet0rabout 10 years ago
If the pixels are laid out in a grid then each has a coordinate (x, y), where x and y are integers. Then we form a bijection (x, y) &lt;-&gt; x&#x2F;y and we see that there are as many pixels as rational numbers. We know that the set of rational numbers is countably infinite, so the number of pixels is countably infinite.
评论 #9230413 未加载
评论 #9230284 未加载
xigencyabout 10 years ago
See the continuum hypothesis. The cardinality of the real numbers is two raised to the power of the cardinality of the natural numbers. So: given that there are a countably infinite number of divisions, each doubling the pixel count, there must be uncountably many pixels that result.<p>This is more obvious if you simply view the &quot;infinite screen&quot; as a bounded region of space with coordinates denoted by pairs of real numbers.
评论 #9234060 未加载
评论 #9234062 未加载
cooper12about 10 years ago
Slightly off topic but: I actually did bail out when I saw the math warning. I had enough of math and infinities in college and just am not curious right now. Still, I think it&#x27;s very interesting how he tailored his blog post to two audiences: first a general tech&#x2F;designer audience, and then a second math-oriented audience. Makes me thing how maybe in the future we can have dynamic content like a Wikipedia article about a computer science topic that gets more specific the more programatically&#x2F;academically inclined the audience is. (As to how you could identify this, one example is adsense, but users might be able to fill in or identify their interests themselves) You can&#x27;t really make something that fits everyone&#x27;s purpose perfectly, but it would be a first good step.
评论 #9230272 未加载
评论 #9230351 未加载
miduilabout 10 years ago
Yet another article that is talking about 4k benefits. My primary (and actually biggest) screen at the moment is a laptop with ~12.5 inches 16:9 1366x768 pixels. I do miss a bigger screen, but I&#x27;m ok with this size. I&#x27;m working with a lot of &#x27;spaces&#x27; and I&#x27;m using a tiling window manager - which makes things easier.<p>PS: Tree style tab for firefox is really nice for 16:9 screens, since most websites are height and not width.
评论 #9230085 未加载
评论 #9230469 未加载