Home › Forums › General & offtopic › What went wrong?
 This topic has 90 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by Anonymous.

AuthorPosts


September 30, 2021 at 2:18 am #121940

September 30, 2021 at 2:21 am #121942AnonymousGuest
Literally nothing.

September 30, 2021 at 2:22 am #121944AnonymousGuest
Careless use of infinities without a proper foundation.

September 30, 2021 at 2:22 am #121948AnonymousGuest
>What went wrong?
crackpots cant understand the idea of infinity and think that numbers are physical objects
September 30, 2021 at 2:26 am #121951AnonymousGuest
Do you think with a proper understanding of infinity you can come up with a better number system?

September 30, 2021 at 2:28 am #121985AnonymousGuest
we do have the proper understanding of infinity, crackpots just dont understand it.

September 30, 2021 at 2:35 am #121989AnonymousGuest
I think calling most of professional mathematicians and physicists crackpots might be going too far. I suggest you consider whether it might be you that’s the crackpot.

September 30, 2021 at 2:39 am #121993AnonymousGuest
>I think calling most of professional mathematicians and physicists crackpots might be going too far
most mathematicians and physicists accept the proper understanding of infinity. only crackpots deny the reals "exist" because they think numbers are or should be understood as some sort of finite physical object.
September 30, 2021 at 3:50 am #122071AnonymousGuest
>understanding of infinity
more like the consequences of infinity.
analogous to black holes in physics. 
September 30, 2021 at 10:48 pm #122155AnonymousGuest
>most mathematicians and physicists accept the proper understanding of infinity. only crackpots deny the reals "exist" because they think numbers are or should be understood as some sort of finite physical object.
/thread






September 30, 2021 at 2:26 am #121982AnonymousGuest
https://i.imgur.com/CmdXEi9.gif
>The notion of axiom was watered down
>Incommensurable magnitudes were given definitive positions
>people started playing God thinking they could procure enough 0.999.. to reach 1
>They mistook idealisms for realities
>They built high but not wide
> paradoxically represents nothing as something
> They thought with enough angles they could make something angleless
> They graphed over incommensurable magnitudes with their functionsThey attempt to wield the infinite like a God, but we are mere mortals. Naturally a egoic hubris has stagnated the the field and threatens to turn logic and reason into tribal opinions ignoring mother natures dictates

September 30, 2021 at 2:37 am #121991AnonymousGuest
/thread

September 30, 2021 at 2:45 am #121997AnonymousGuest
>lain point theory and hitomi analysis fix all these problems and more
literally handed a master piece and just ignore it
September 30, 2021 at 2:59 am #122014AnonymousGuest
I remember looking at that, found it too was guilty of the appeal to infinite iteration fallacy and commiting the paradox of representing nothing as something.


September 30, 2021 at 5:18 am #122132AnonymousGuest
>Incommensurable magnitudes were given definitive positions
But of course. How else would they apply more math to it?And their choice was not arbitrary, I’d argue they combed through a lot of procedures to find the most rational one
>this is mathematics, we arent "measuring" shit
which is why physicist call your work the mathematical garb.There is no difference between a modern day physicist and a mathematician though.

September 30, 2021 at 5:52 am #122135AnonymousGuest
>But of course. How else would they apply more math to it?
By at least changing the field and the notion of the continuum into one that properly defines and describes the magical tom foolery that is the appeal to infinite iteration. Leave the ‘reals’ to reality.>There is no difference between a modern day physicist and a mathematician though.
much to my chagrin… I expect the next breakthroughs to be from engineers
September 30, 2021 at 10:10 pm #122142AnonymousGuest
>By at least changing the field and the notion of the continuum into one that properly defines and describes the magical tom foolery that is the appeal to infinite iteration
"Incommensurable". It literally cannot be defined.>Leave the ‘reals’ to reality.
So reality is not quantifiable?
September 30, 2021 at 10:18 pm #122153AnonymousGuest
https://i.imgur.com/vfMiatG.gif
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3AlAil5Crc&ab_channel=JohnGabriel
>So reality is not quantifiable?
This is why english need germanic word compounding. How many have assumed that because they are called the reals, that they are in fact the reals???One cannot quantify commensurable numbers. You can do 1, but not sqrt(2)

September 30, 2021 at 11:13 pm #122184AnonymousGuest
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3AlAil5Crc&ab_channel=JohnGabriel
Yes it is not a number. "Because it cannot be defined". Same with "0" or any other irrational.>This is why english need germanic word compounding. How many have assumed that because they are called the reals, that they are in fact the reals???
That’s not what I meant and you don’t need any language to understand that. Math itself is a language. Reality cannot be "quantified" (counted, using math to determine/explain it), just as it cannot be understood using words from any language.

September 30, 2021 at 11:16 pm #122185AnonymousGuest
>Same with "0" or any other irrational.
0 = 0/1
September 30, 2021 at 11:49 pm #122213AnonymousGuest
>no quantity is a quantity
>Reality cannot be "quantified"
melancholic relativism, undoubtedly inculcated by cultural marxists. Of course it can be quantified! the question is to what degree of perfection as determined by its precision. What is the degree of error>Of course it can be quantified!
>the question is to what degree of perfection as determined by its precision.
>No standard of measure
September 30, 2021 at 11:50 pm #122215AnonymousGuest
>No standard of measure
magnitude
ratio’s of magnitudes
the unitthere is your standard of measure

September 30, 2021 at 11:58 pm #122226AnonymousGuest
https://i.imgur.com/kuySlt5.gif
You will run into the problem again and run away from it by assigning yet another expression to what you cannot quantify. This is how the principles of incommensurability were discovered in the first place.

October 1, 2021 at 12:31 am #122227AnonymousGuest
you can take physical object and make it a unit of measure. Your awash in the cultural marxist, its all relative miasma

October 1, 2021 at 12:54 am #122238AnonymousGuest
>you can take physical object and make it a unit of measure
Exactly. The physical object is not a number. Furthermore that just proves there is no common standard of measure because I can just take anything and call it a quantity.>Your awash in the cultural marxist, its all relative miasma
"It is objectively incommensurable". 
October 1, 2021 at 3:01 am #122239AnonymousGuest
What one cannot do, is claim that that physical object is of length sqrt(2)

October 1, 2021 at 11:54 am #122241AnonymousGuest
take two exactly footlong sticks and join their bases perpendicularly to each other, what is the distance between their tips in feet?

October 1, 2021 at 4:41 pm #122250AnonymousGuest
https://i.imgur.com/vfMiatG.gif
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3AlAil5Crc&ab_channel=JohnGabriel
>So reality is not quantifiable?
This is why english need germanic word compounding. How many have assumed that because they are called the reals, that they are in fact the reals???One cannot quantify commensurable numbers. You can do 1, but not sqrt(2)
see gif and vids related, there is a part of that magnitude which can never be measured

October 1, 2021 at 5:37 pm #122252AnonymousGuest
it can’t be measured practically, but theoretically if we had an infinitely precise instrument and measured each decimal place successively we’d certainly end up with 1.4142…
or are you saying the diagonal doesn’t exist or isn’t sqrt2?
what is it then?
I haven’t watched too much wildberger but it seems to me that he’s upset mostly about decimal representation, not that he thinks that there aren’t such numbers in theory (key word in theory, and in fact it’s impossible to disagree because these numbers are simply defined to be that way).
Also if you had a diagonal with an integer value, shifting it by the smallest value would make it irrational. If we did that with sticks again would that suddenly make the value change from a nice integer to "immeasurable”
ridiculous. 
October 1, 2021 at 6:22 pm #122270AnonymousGuest
https://i.imgur.com/btqlqLE.gif
>it can’t be measured practically, but theoretically if we had an infinitely precise instrument and measured each decimal place successively we’d certainly end up with 1.4142…
This is what I call playing God, only He could make it to the end of an endlessly repeating staircase>or are you saying the diagonal doesn’t exist or isn’t sqrt2?
Certianly not physically, it has no place being inside a definition that touts itself as ‘the reals’.




September 30, 2021 at 11:19 pm #122188

September 30, 2021 at 11:22 pm #122197



October 1, 2021 at 6:00 pm #122256AnonymousGuest
>i ccan bbuild a rright triangle so the """reals""" must be rrrreal
No you can’t. The physical world only allows you to create a rational length piece of wood. You can nail it to two pieces of wood approximating a right angle but it will never fit perfectly.
October 1, 2021 at 6:02 pm #122257AnonymousGuest
>The physical world only allows you to create a rational length piece of wood.
how do we know any length of wood is rational? how can we measure it? you’re pursuing a flawed line of reasoning. math is separate from the real world. the real solution is much simpler: 
October 1, 2021 at 6:03 pm #122259AnonymousGuest
>You can nail it to two pieces of wood approximating a right angle but it will never fit perfectly.
and what if my real intention was to get whatever number the approximate value I ended up at is, now I’ve just gotten PRECISELY whatever number I want, and getting 90 should be no different.
you’ll default to believing that numbers don’t exist in the real world if you follow this reasoning
October 1, 2021 at 6:07 pm #122260AnonymousGuest
>if i want a rational number i can calculate it therefore reals exist
?Your "real" "numbers" are an algorithm that can be used to calculate wood length that fits arbitrarily closely to your right angle. Algorithms working doesn’t somehow turn them into objects.

October 1, 2021 at 6:12 pm #122261AnonymousGuest
Your contention was that you’ll never truly have two pieces of wood precisely perpendicular to each other, and now that we’ve solved that,you have to tell me what the diagonal length between our unit pieces of wood that are exactly 90 degrees from each other is.

October 1, 2021 at 6:16 pm #122262AnonymousGuest
No I didn’t. I said that even if you theoretically had two such pieces of wood no other piece would fit perfectly with them. You could get arbitrarily close but ‘fitting perfectly’ isn’t possible.
>you have to tell me what the diagonal length between our unit pieces of wood that are exactly 90 degrees from each other is
>>>/x/
October 1, 2021 at 6:23 pm #122272AnonymousGuest
but you can fit it perfectly when each of the two pieces are of length 3 and 4, so that the diagonal is sqrt25 (an integer)?
yet somehow if we shorten the 3 piece by 0.0001, the diagonal is now sqrt24.99940001 (irrational) and therefore nonexistent/can never be fit perfectly? 
October 1, 2021 at 7:26 pm #122331AnonymousGuest
Yes.
https://i.imgur.com/bIRJ6z2.gif
>arbitrarily close
arbitrarily close =/= perfect precision>perfect precision
>>>/x/ 
October 1, 2021 at 7:59 pm #122333AnonymousGuest
1 has perfect precision,
2 has perfect precision
the real numbers claim sqrt(2)=1.414… has perfect precisionthe reals belong on >>>/x/

October 1, 2021 at 6:25 pm #122286AnonymousGuest
https://i.imgur.com/bIRJ6z2.gif
>arbitrarily close
arbitrarily close =/= perfect precision









September 30, 2021 at 10:44 pm #122154AnonymousGuest
>schizo
>finitist
>empty but seemingly poignant metaphors
>"playing god"
Never change, LULZ


September 30, 2021 at 2:33 am #121987AnonymousGuest
>literally just rational numbers
when people started believing this wasn’t the case.
I’ve literally proved sqrt(2) is rational many times on here.
September 30, 2021 at 3:03 am #122041AnonymousGuest
https://i.imgur.com/QQfOXff.gif
the best rationalization I’ve found for sqrt(2) was on a bloody babylonian tablet. They managed to get it to 1.41421296(296)… which is undoubtedly better formed than the garbled junk that comes out of our current procedure

September 30, 2021 at 3:11 am #122044AnonymousGuest
>a crude approximation in base60 is "better" than showing that an integer denominator is logically impossible
please assume [math] sqrt{2} [/math] is rational. Then it should be obvious to you why that fails.
September 30, 2021 at 3:33 am #122063AnonymousGuest
>a crude approximation
To one inculcated in the reals, they will always believe more decimals are inherently better. But the babylonians, who focused much more dearly on perfect commensurability, understood, less is best, and rhythmic occurrence is better. The cauchy sequence offers insight. many irrationals do not offer smooth and evenly iterated displacement to the true value as decimals increase. Life at 4 decimals is subject to a different measurement bias than life at 5 decimals.[math]sqrt{2} = frac{30547}{21600} = 1.24 space 51 space 10_{60} [/math] is not only rational in base 60, but in base 10 the rate of precision increase with increased decimals is constant
>please assume sqrt(2) is rational.
lol, is this not what the Babylonians did? find rational approximations?
September 30, 2021 at 3:45 am #122066AnonymousGuest
>lol, is this not what the Babylonians did?
Even they knew it was irrational, they simply settled for an approximation.
>Life at 4 decimals is subject to a different measurement bias than life at 5 decimals.
this is mathematics, we arent "measuring" shit





September 30, 2021 at 2:39 am #121995AnonymousGuest
With reals it all became talking about what it would be like to do mathematics if you had godlike powers rather than doing mathematics ourselves.

September 30, 2021 at 2:51 am #122000AnonymousGuest
>imagine a structure where you can add numbers together and still be in the structure bro?
>awesome sis, now, what if we had a way to tell if one number is bigger than the other? call it an order?
>wow sis now imagine if you can subtract and multiply and still be inside and still have an order?
>epic sis, now what if you could divide with any number except the additive identity and without leaving the structure or killing the order?
>sweet sis, now what if any sequence of numbers in the structure had a limit that was also in the structure? and there was still an order?
>Okay now hear me out sis, what if any polynomial with coefficients from the structure had roots that were also in the structure? aw man but this loses the order. still worth it in some cases tho bro!Where does the logic fall apart? Honestly.

October 1, 2021 at 5:45 pm #122254AnonymousGuest
The part where you have a sequence of numbers. You mights as well assume jesus is descending from the heavens and declaring mathematical constants by engraving them on unicorns.


September 30, 2021 at 2:55 am #122011

September 30, 2021 at 12:57 pm #122140AnonymousGuest
Counting rocks is still better than counting fairies.



September 30, 2021 at 2:47 am #121998El ArcÃ³nGuest
Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
Recent analysis has uncovered a broad swath of rarely considered real numbers called real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Here we extend the catalog of the rudimentary analytical properties of all real numbers by defining a set of fractional distance functions on the real number line and studying their behavior. The main results of are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number, (2) to develop a technique for taking a limit at infinity via the ordinary Cauchy definition reliant on the classical epsilondelta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the neighborhood of infinity. We define numbers in the neighborhood of infinity as Cartesian products of Cauchy equivalence classes of rationals. We axiomatize the arithmetic of such numbers, prove all the operations are welldefined, and then make comparisons to the similar axioms of a complete ordered field. After developing the many underling foundations, we present a basis for a topology.
September 30, 2021 at 4:15 am #122122AnonymousGuest
i really hope noone takes this seriously?

September 30, 2021 at 4:18 am #122125AnonymousGuest
http://762com.com/d0cs/papers/Quick_Disproof_of_the_Riemann_Hypothesis__v420200605.pdf this guy literally "disproves" the Riemann hypothesis.
ok yeah this guy is a meme

September 30, 2021 at 11:06 pm #122176AnonymousGuest
schizo

October 1, 2021 at 12:51 am #122236


September 30, 2021 at 3:47 am #122069AnonymousGuest
>HURRR infinity doesn’t ExIsT
>Durrrr THEYre not INfniteSImals, thEIR just RLY SMOL
>gUyZ tHeSe ToTaLlY aReNt JuSt ThE RaTiOnAlS! 
September 30, 2021 at 3:55 am #122093AnonymousGuest
all of these infinity schizos are the enemy of logic
they will be sent to mental hospitals for an infinite time as a cruel twist of fate 
September 30, 2021 at 3:58 am #122116

September 30, 2021 at 4:13 am #122119AnonymousGuest
your mom

September 30, 2021 at 6:07 am #122138AnonymousGuest
etard

September 30, 2021 at 10:17 pm #122144AnonymousGuest
Python and the relevant libraries are just much better.

September 30, 2021 at 10:17 pm #122146AnonymousGuest
Woke af


September 30, 2021 at 11:17 pm #122186AnonymousGuest
A sequence converging to zero does not imply its sum converges.
That’s why Qp is superior. Fuck Archimedes and his property. 
September 30, 2021 at 11:53 pm #122217AnonymousGuest
Mathematical Platonism leading to people not thinking over the Law of Excluded Middle soon enough

October 1, 2021 at 5:29 pm #122251AnonymousGuest
sqrt(2) is rational and it is even. there i solved it.

October 1, 2021 at 5:44 pm #122253AnonymousGuest
Where the fuck does all this schizo shit come from?
Have any of you schizo idiots studied mathematics ? Do you don’t understand the notion of completeness? Do you not understand what mathematics are?
Go the fuck back to LULZ or whatever loony bin you came from 
October 1, 2021 at 6:24 pm #122273AnonymousGuest
threadly reminder that if you have a problem with sqrt(2), you’re a confirmed pseud. not even wildberger has a problem with sqrt(2).

October 1, 2021 at 6:26 pm #122288AnonymousGuest
[…]
see gif and vids related, there is a part of that magnitude which can never be measuredHe is fine if you admit you are in fact using an approximatino, or even if you perform
Fractional Distance: The Topology of the Real Number Line with Applications to the Riemann Hypothesis
https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0237
Recent analysis has uncovered a broad swath of rarely considered real numbers called real numbers in the neighborhood of infinity. Here we extend the catalog of the rudimentary analytical properties of all real numbers by defining a set of fractional distance functions on the real number line and studying their behavior. The main results of are (1) to prove with modest axioms that some real numbers are greater than any natural number, (2) to develop a technique for taking a limit at infinity via the ordinary Cauchy definition reliant on the classical epsilondelta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the neighborhood of infinity. We define numbers in the neighborhood of infinity as Cartesian products of Cauchy equivalence classes of rationals. We axiomatize the arithmetic of such numbers, prove all the operations are welldefined, and then make comparisons to the similar axioms of a complete ordered field. After developing the many underling foundations, we present a basis for a topology.(extending the number field)
but he is not fine with the analytic ‘solution’ proclaiming there is this magic power sigil ‘. . .’ that ca reach the end of the infinite


October 1, 2021 at 6:30 pm #122290AnonymousGuest
>physical
>length
>measure
STFU, we are talking about numbers. [math] sqrt{2} [/math] exists in the complete ordered field and is irrational.
October 1, 2021 at 6:43 pm #122307AnonymousGuest
I thought we were talking about what went wrong with the ‘real numbers’ (ie they are not real, physical, finite length, measurable)
They cannot be stored in computer memory. They are approximated with functions that iterate to a set precision. I’m fine with your complete ordered field game, but just stop calling it ‘real’ its not, its phantasy

October 1, 2021 at 6:45 pm #122309AnonymousGuest
do you think computers don’t approximate 1/3 and 1/9?

October 1, 2021 at 7:05 pm #122329AnonymousGuest
>what went wrong with the ‘real numbers’
nothing
>(ie they are not real, physical, finite length, measurable)
does not matter one lick
>They cannot be stored in computer memory.
no one cares
>They are approximated with functions that iterate to a set precision.
arbitrary precision given arbitrary time
>just stop calling it ‘real’ its not, its phantasy
its a name you dumbass.you are trying to argue the foundations when you dont even know the basics. you are like the guy who goes straight to the first chamber of shaolin, you are in position to even understand



October 1, 2021 at 8:00 pm #122334AnonymousGuest
>call it "the real numbers"
>reality probably is only countable infinity 
October 1, 2021 at 8:34 pm #122335AnonymousGuest
i don’t know.

October 1, 2021 at 11:20 pm #122336AnonymousGuest
I’m glad there’s a containment thread for all you fucks. Now we just need another one for Monty Hall deniers and we’ll be set.


AuthorPosts
 You must be logged in to reply to this topic.