What went wrong?

Home Forums General & off-topic What went wrong?

Viewing 22 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #121940
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What went wrong?

    • #121942
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Literally nothing.

      • #122087
        Anonymous
        Guest

        infinity

      • #122096
        Anonymous
        Guest

        this is cope

    • #121944
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Careless use of infinities without a proper foundation.

    • #121948
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >What went wrong?
      crackpots cant understand the idea of infinity and think that numbers are physical objects

      • #121951
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Do you think with a proper understanding of infinity you can come up with a better number system?

        • #121985
          Anonymous
          Guest

          we do have the proper understanding of infinity, crackpots just dont understand it.

          • #121989
            Anonymous
            Guest

            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.

            • #121993
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >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.

              • #122071
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >understanding of infinity
                more like the consequences of infinity.
                analogous to black holes in physics.

              • #122155
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >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

    • #121982
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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 functions

      They 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

      • #121991
        Anonymous
        Guest

        /thread

      • #121997
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >lain point theory and hitomi analysis fix all these problems and more
        literally handed a master piece and just ignore it

        • #122014
          Anonymous
          Guest

          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.

      • #122132
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >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.

        • #122135
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >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

          • #122142
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >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?

            • #122153
              Anonymous
              Guest

              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)

              • #122184
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >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.

                • #122185
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Same with "0" or any other irrational.
                  0 = 0/1

                  • #122213
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    >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

                    • #122215
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >No standard of measure
                      magnitude
                      ratio’s of magnitudes
                      the unit

                      there is your standard of measure

                      • #122226
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        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.

                      • #122227
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        you can take physical object and make it a unit of measure. Your awash in the cultural marxist, its all relative miasma

                      • #122238
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >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".

                      • #122239
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        What one cannot do, is claim that that physical object is of length sqrt(2)

                      • #122241
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        take two exactly footlong sticks and join their bases perpendicularly to each other, what is the distance between their tips in feet?

                      • #122250
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        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

                      • #122252
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        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.

                      • #122270
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        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’.

                • #122188
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >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

                • #122197
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Same with "0" or any other irrational.
                  a canonical sin of the reals, to express nothingness as somethingness. Zero at most should be a placeholder, it is not a number

            • #122256
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >i c-can b-build a r-right triangle so the """reals""" must be r-r-r-real
              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.

              • #122257
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >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:

                sqrt(2) is rational and it is even. there i solved it.

              • #122259
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >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

                • #122260
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >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.

                  • #122261
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    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.

                    • #122262
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      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/

                      • #122272
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        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?

                      • #122331
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes.

                        https://i.imgur.com/bIRJ6z2.gif

                        >arbitrarily close
                        arbitrarily close =/= perfect precision

                        >perfect precision
                        >>>/x/

                      • #122333
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        1 has perfect precision,
                        2 has perfect precision
                        the real numbers claim sqrt(2)=1.414… has perfect precision

                        the reals belong on >>>/x/

                      • #122286
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        https://i.imgur.com/bIRJ6z2.gif

                        >arbitrarily close
                        arbitrarily close =/= perfect precision

      • #122154
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >schizo
        >finitist
        >empty but seemingly poignant metaphors
        >"playing god"
        Never change, LULZ

        • #122156
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Poor sod thinks Thoth is on his side. Little does he know that both of us laugh at him behind his back

          • #122175
            Anonymous
            Guest

            What others do not to my face is a reflection of them- it is not my concern.

            Have you geometerized the pyramidis, ye philosopher?

            Modern maths have abandoned the notion of commensurable precision.

    • #121987
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >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.

      • #122041
        Anonymous
        Guest

        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

        • #122044
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >a crude approximation in base-60 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.

          • #122063
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >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?

            • #122066
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >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

              • #122084
                Anonymous
                Guest

                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.

                • #122090
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >…and then he married a pigeon
                  k

    • #121995
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

      • #122000
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >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.

        • #122254
          Anonymous
          Guest

          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.

      • #122011
        Anonymous
        Guest

        go count some rocks then

        • #122140
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Counting rocks is still better than counting fairies.

    • #121998
      El Arcón
      Guest

      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 epsilon-delta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of non-trivial 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 well-defined, 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.

    • #122069
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >HURRR infinity doesn’t ExIsT
      >Durrrr THEYre not INfniteSImals, thEIR just RLY SMOL
      >gUyZ tHeSe ToTaLlY aReNt JuSt ThE RaTiOnAlS!

    • #122093
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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

    • #122116
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #122119
      Anonymous
      Guest

      your mom

    • #122138
      Anonymous
      Guest

      etard

    • #122144
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Python and the relevant libraries are just much better.

      • #122146
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Woke af

    • #122186
      Anonymous
      Guest

      A sequence converging to zero does not imply its sum converges.
      That’s why Qp is superior. Fuck Archimedes and his property.

    • #122217
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Mathematical Platonism leading to people not thinking over the Law of Excluded Middle soon enough

    • #122251
      Anonymous
      Guest

      sqrt(2) is rational and it is even. there i solved it.

      • #122258
        Anonymous
        Guest

        ok sis write it as a fraction then

      • #122271
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Proof required

    • #122253
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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

    • #122273
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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).

      • #122288
        Anonymous
        Guest

        […]
        see gif and vids related, there is a part of that magnitude which can never be measured

        He 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 epsilon-delta formalism, and (3) to demonstrate an infinite number of non-trivial 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 well-defined, 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

    • #122290
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >physical
      >length
      >measure
      STFU, we are talking about numbers. [math] sqrt{2} [/math] exists in the complete ordered field and is irrational.

      • #122307
        Anonymous
        Guest

        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

        • #122309
          Anonymous
          Guest

          do you think computers don’t approximate 1/3 and 1/9?

          • #122311
            Anonymous
            Guest

            They don’t have to, brainlet.

            • #122321
              Anonymous
              Guest

              and they don’t have to not approximate sqrt2 schizo kun

              • #122324
                Anonymous
                Guest

                They do, you literal scrotebrain.

                • #122327
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  read it again, esl

          • #122318
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Is this computer trinary?

            Such numbers as these only need a prime factor in their base. However, you will find no prime factor that can do this to sqrt(2)

            for example 1/3 in base 12 0.4_12

        • #122329
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >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

    • #122334
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >call it "the real numbers"
      >reality probably is only countable infinity

    • #122335
      Anonymous
      Guest

      i don’t know.

    • #122336
      Anonymous
      Guest

      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.

Viewing 22 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.