Using L’Hôpital’s rule, we take the derivative of each to get their ratio, ie: 100/1, so the $100 bill infinity is bigger (since the value of the money grows faster as the number of bills approaches infinity, or said another way: the ratio of two infinities is the same as the ratio of their rates of change).
Infinity aside, the growth rate of number of bills vs the value of those bills has nothing to do with the original scenario though. It’s like arguing that a kilogram of feathers weighs less than a kilogram of bowling balls because the scale goes up less for every feather I put on the scale compared to every bowling ball I put on the scale.
Edit: Though if you want to talk about how weird infinity really is, here are some fun facts for you:
There are just as many even numbers as rational numbers, even though all even numbers are rational but not all rational numbers are even. This is because both sets are countably infinite.
There are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. This is because even though both sets are infinite, the set of irrational numbers is uncountably infinite.
It’s like arguing that a kilogram of feathers weighs less than a kilogram of bowling balls because the scale goes up less for every feather I put on the scale compared to every bowling ball I put on the scale.
I’m arguing that infinity bowling balls weighs more than infinity feathers, though
Try thinking of it like this: If I have an infinite amount of feathers, I can balance a scale that has any number of bowling balls on it. Even if there was an infinite number of bowling balls on the other side, I could still balance it because I also have infinite feathers that I can keep adding until it balances. I don’t need MORE than infinite feathers just because there’s infinite bowling balls. In the same way if my scale had every rational number on one side I could add enough even numbers to the other side to make it balance, but if I had all the irrational numbers on one side of the scale then I would never have enough rational numbers to make it balance out even though they are also infinite.
Edit: I suppose the easiest explaination is that it’s already paradoxical to even talk about having an infinite number of objects in reality just like it would be paradoxical to talk about having a negative number of objects. Which weighs more, -5 feathers that weigh 1 gram each or -5 bowling balls that weigh 7000 grams each? Math tells us in this case that the feathers now weigh more than the bowling balls even though we have the same amount of each and each bowling ball weighs more than each feather. In reality we can’t have less than zero of either.
The conventional view on infinity would say they’re actually the same size of infinity assuming the 1 and the 100 belong to the same set.
You’re right that one function grows faster but infinity itself is no different regardless of what you multiply them by. The infinities both have same set size and would encompass the same concept of infinity regardless of what they’re multiplied by. The set size of infinity is denoted by the order of aleph (ℵ) it belongs to. If both 1 and 100 are natural numbers then they belong to the set of countable infinity, which is called aleph-zero (ℵ₀). If both 1 and 100 are reals, then the size of their infinities are uncountably infinite, which means they belong to aleph-one (ℵ₁).
That said, you can definitely have different definitions of infinity that are unconventional as long as they fit whatever axioms you come up with. But since most math is grounded in set theory, that’s where this particular convention stems from.
Anyways, given your example it would really depend on whether time was a factor. If the question was “would you rather have 1 • x or 100 • x dollars where x approaches infinity every second?” well the answer is obvious, because we’re describing something that has a growth rate. If the question was “You have infinity dollars. Do you prefer 1 • ∞ or 100 • ∞?” it really wouldn’t matter because you have infinity dollars. They’re the same infinity. In other words you could withdraw as much money as you wanted and always have infinity. They are equally as limitless.
Now I can foresee a counter-argument where maybe you meant 1 • ∞ vs 100 • ∞ to mean that you can only withdraw in ones or hundred dollar bills, but that’s a synthetic constraint you’ve put on it from a banking perspective. You’ve created a new notation and have defined it separately from the conventional meaning of infinity in mathematics. And in reality that is maybe more of a physics question about the amount of dollar bills that can physically exist that is practical, and a philosophical question about the convenience of 1 vs 100 dollar bills, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the size of infinity mathematically. Without an artificial constraint you could just as easily take out your infinite money in denominations of 20, 50, 1000, a million, and still have the same infinite amount of dollars left over.
for $1 bills: lim(x->inf) 1*x
for $100 bills: lim(x->inf) 100*x
Using L’Hôpital’s rule, we take the derivative of each to get their ratio, ie: 100/1, so the $100 bill infinity is bigger (since the value of the money grows faster as the number of bills approaches infinity, or said another way: the ratio of two infinities is the same as the ratio of their rates of change).
Infinity aside, the growth rate of number of bills vs the value of those bills has nothing to do with the original scenario though. It’s like arguing that a kilogram of feathers weighs less than a kilogram of bowling balls because the scale goes up less for every feather I put on the scale compared to every bowling ball I put on the scale.
Edit: Though if you want to talk about how weird infinity really is, here are some fun facts for you:
There are just as many even numbers as rational numbers, even though all even numbers are rational but not all rational numbers are even. This is because both sets are countably infinite.
There are more irrational numbers than rational numbers. This is because even though both sets are infinite, the set of irrational numbers is uncountably infinite.
I’m arguing that infinity bowling balls weighs more than infinity feathers, though
Try thinking of it like this: If I have an infinite amount of feathers, I can balance a scale that has any number of bowling balls on it. Even if there was an infinite number of bowling balls on the other side, I could still balance it because I also have infinite feathers that I can keep adding until it balances. I don’t need MORE than infinite feathers just because there’s infinite bowling balls. In the same way if my scale had every rational number on one side I could add enough even numbers to the other side to make it balance, but if I had all the irrational numbers on one side of the scale then I would never have enough rational numbers to make it balance out even though they are also infinite.
Edit: I suppose the easiest explaination is that it’s already paradoxical to even talk about having an infinite number of objects in reality just like it would be paradoxical to talk about having a negative number of objects. Which weighs more, -5 feathers that weigh 1 gram each or -5 bowling balls that weigh 7000 grams each? Math tells us in this case that the feathers now weigh more than the bowling balls even though we have the same amount of each and each bowling ball weighs more than each feather. In reality we can’t have less than zero of either.
The conventional view on infinity would say they’re actually the same size of infinity assuming the 1 and the 100 belong to the same set.
You’re right that one function grows faster but infinity itself is no different regardless of what you multiply them by. The infinities both have same set size and would encompass the same concept of infinity regardless of what they’re multiplied by. The set size of infinity is denoted by the order of aleph (ℵ) it belongs to. If both 1 and 100 are natural numbers then they belong to the set of countable infinity, which is called aleph-zero (ℵ₀). If both 1 and 100 are reals, then the size of their infinities are uncountably infinite, which means they belong to aleph-one (ℵ₁).
That said, you can definitely have different definitions of infinity that are unconventional as long as they fit whatever axioms you come up with. But since most math is grounded in set theory, that’s where this particular convention stems from.
Anyways, given your example it would really depend on whether time was a factor. If the question was “would you rather have 1 • x or 100 • x dollars where x approaches infinity every second?” well the answer is obvious, because we’re describing something that has a growth rate. If the question was “You have infinity dollars. Do you prefer 1 • ∞ or 100 • ∞?” it really wouldn’t matter because you have infinity dollars. They’re the same infinity. In other words you could withdraw as much money as you wanted and always have infinity. They are equally as limitless.
Now I can foresee a counter-argument where maybe you meant 1 • ∞ vs 100 • ∞ to mean that you can only withdraw in ones or hundred dollar bills, but that’s a synthetic constraint you’ve put on it from a banking perspective. You’ve created a new notation and have defined it separately from the conventional meaning of infinity in mathematics. And in reality that is maybe more of a physics question about the amount of dollar bills that can physically exist that is practical, and a philosophical question about the convenience of 1 vs 100 dollar bills, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the size of infinity mathematically. Without an artificial constraint you could just as easily take out your infinite money in denominations of 20, 50, 1000, a million, and still have the same infinite amount of dollars left over.