/lit/ - Literature

>>11418287
> “so we assume there is a spatial point, and we consider a sphere of radius one meter around that point. We know that there a finite number of objects in that finite sphere. Let’s say there are N_1 number of objects.”
>“then we consider a sphere of radius 2 meters around the same point. We have only added a finite amount of volume and so only have added a finite number, N_2, of objects”
>Professor Longbottom looks intrigued, which encourages Weasleykins
>“inductively he continues, define N_k to be the number of objects in the sphere of radius N_k that are not in the sphere of radius N_(k-1). For all natural numbers j, N_j will be a finite number”
>Weasleykins looks around to make sure he hasn’t embarrassed himself by saying something stupid
>“and so, and so! By the principle of mathematical induction, the sum N_1 + N_2 + … will also be finite!”
>some reluctant at first but gradually more confident nods come from a few students in the classroom
> “you, know, I think he might be right”
>Professor Longbottom: “Very clever, Mr. Weasleykins. So, we’re all in agreement as to the validity and soundness of his argument”
>Longbottom looks around the class quizzingly, so as to suggest that he himself wasn’t convinced

>>11418290
>after no one in the class volunteers to find a flaw in Weasleykins argument, Professor Longbottom continued
>“well, as you all know, the principle of mathematical induction only allows you to conclude that for some proposition P(k), such as ‘there are a finite number of objects in a sphere of radius k’, only allows you to conclude P(j) for all natural number j”
>“It does not, however, apply to infinity.”
>a few students slap their hands to their foreheads; Stenny Goodwater lets out a nervous fart
>“Moreover,” the professor continues, “an infinite sum of a finite collection need not be finite.”
>“For example, recently mathematicians have determined that the summation 1 + ½ + ¼ + ⅛ + …” is in fact infinite
>looks of astonishment throughout the class, one student mutters “what!” under his breath
>“So, although I enjoyed the attempt, I cannot accept your proof.”
>Weasleykins nods his head, knowing that he was wrong but has impressed his professor nonetheless
>“but Professor!” its Johnny Rotten, notorious agitator and provocateur. “You’ve just invoked the infinitude of the sequence 1 + ½ + ¼ + ⅛ + … in your counterexample. But here we are trying to establish a proposition on infinity! Aren’t you begging the question?”
>where before every pair of eyes had been fixed Johnny Rotten, all heads instantaneously swivel to behold the professor

>>11418292
please continue

I need to know how this ends.

>>11418302
>>11418307
I'll be back shortly

>>11418292
>Professor Longbottom: “aha! I should’ve known you weren’t going to let me off that easily!”
>“But unfortunately, Mr. Rotten, it’s not the metaphysical concept of infinity which we are discussing, but rather a property of physical objects.”
>“However, I of course want the material I teach in this course to be self-contained. And since some of you haven’t taken PHIL 4400: Set Theory for Philosophy Majors, I suppose we should modify the proposition.”
>“We are now discussing the proposition ‘If the mathematico-linguistic ‘infinity’ is well defined, then there are an infinite number of objects in the universe.’”
>“Satisfied, Mr. Rotten?”
>Rotten nodded his head, then looked around at the classmates directly behind with a small shrug and a smile.
>Professor Longbottom: “Now then, back to the discussion.”
>the Professor looks at Seamus Sharperly, saying “Mr. Sharperly, you’ve been awfully quiet this discussion.”
>Sharperly was the smartest analytic philosopher in the room (excluding the professor), and everyone in the class knew it
>Sharperly, who was writing furiously in his notepad looked up
>“That’s because I’ve been working on my proof this whole symposium. Care to hear it?”

>>11418307
Mass suicide like what happened with Jim Jones.

>>11418325
>The class goes dead silent, several students get goosebumps as a strong draft blows in through the open window
>Professor Longbottom: “Well, I can’t of course accede to wanting to hear your proof just the same as I can’t declare I would like to drink whiskey with a fingerless Scotchman, because I have no knowledge of the existence of any finglerless Scotchman. In just the same way I have no idea if what you’ve got written on that paper there is indeed a ‘proof’”, he said slyly, pronouncing the quotation marks.
>Longbottom added “though I’m quite sure at least one fingerless Scotchman is out there” and winked at Sharperly
>Sharperly looked at his notepad and announced “I will establish the infinitude of the number of objects in the universe with a proof absurdum”
>“First, we suppose to the contrary that there are only a finite number of objects in the universe. Say there are N objects. We may enumerate them in a list, a physical list on parchment and designate the parchment as Parchment_N”
>Professor Longbottom nods his head but inwardly smiles; Sharperly was pursuing a tried and true method of proof
>”Of course, our list is a part of the universe, so we will have to include include an item at the end of our list which designates our list, presumably ‘Parchment_N’”
>“However, in doing so we have created a new object. That is, a list that contains all of the items listed in Parchment_N as well as the item Parchment_N. We designate this list as Parchment_(N+1)”
>“Continuing inductively we see that for any natural number J, Parchment_J does not include Parchment_(J+1). We conclude by induction that for no integer N can the list Parchment_N contain all the objects of the universe”
>“We conclude that the universe is not finite.”

>>11418342
>The Professor, amused and proud at the same time looks around the classroom
>Students are scratching their heads, brows furrowed
>Professor Longbottom sees that only a few of them have understood Sharperlyerly’s argument
>“Well, Sharperlyerly, though I’ll have to think on it a bit more, I think you’ve got yourself a solid infinite regress.”
>“And oh goodness! I’m sorry everyone, but it looks like we’ve gone a few minutes over.”
>The students, emerging from a state of deep concentration look just as surprised as the Professor
>“Well, for homework I encourage you to ponder Sharperlyerly’s argument, see if you can find a flaw.”
>He grins as the students exit the class knowing this to be the most difficult assignment he’s given them all semester
>As he’s exiting, Sharperlyerly looks back over his shoulder at Professor Longbottom, who gives him a one singular, approving nod
>Professor Longbottom gathers his things, wondering if one day Sharperlyerly will be the next Distinguished Professor of Modern Philosophy at the University of Tottingham

Wonderful thread

sharperlyerly’s wrong but I don’t wanna spoil the story’s development so I won’t explain why

>>11418342
Professor Longbottom, isn't Sharperly's proof just Aristotle's 3rd man argument?

This was a very nice read, thank you.

>>11418410
the story's over, for now at least.
anyways this was mostly just a bunch of jokes, but if you want to then be my guest.

Write a book like this please

Reminds me of the classroom scenes in portrait of the artist as a young man

>>11418439
>implying analytic philosophers read pre-analytic philosophy
>>11418444
:-)

>>11418445
Sharperlyerly assumes that objects can be created from material. For example, the Parchment_(N + 1) was created, meaning, it was not included in Parchment_N. However, the materials needed to create the new list were always included in Parchment_N. They were only rearranged to form Parchment_(N + 1). Had Parchment_N simply counted the number of atoms in the universe, it could include the atoms within the list itself, and there would be no case for regress. His whole argument is really no different than saying numbers can be added indefinitely, therefore there are infinite objects. Numbers may be added (and therefore created) abstractly, but it is not proven that those numbers can be assigned to objects in the universe. Besides, even if I perform many functions on Graham’s number to make it even larger, I will never actually comprehend the number I’ve created, but only know that it’s a really big number.

>>11418488
this is like saying that water is indistinguishable from two hydrogen atoms who are just hanging out with one oxygen atom

>>11418342
We can just write "Parchment N" on parchment N. There's no need for a new piece of paper.

>>11418456
But Aristotle is THE analytic. Even pic related, who tore the big A a new one countless times, acknowledge the importance of reading Aristotle.

>>11418557
"Parchment N" designates a piece of paper which doesn't have "Parchment N" written on it. Once we write "Parchment N" we need a new item in our list.

>>11418567
But there's no a priori reason we couldn't just write "Parchment N" on Parchment N. The student just arbitrarily said we can't, when, in fact, we can.

It's a mangled version of "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves," but since sheets of paper aren't abstract objects, the same rules don't apply.

>>11418455
>james joyce
appreciate it my anon but this was a shitpost.

>>11418551
It doesn’t change the number of objects in the world. If I can combine two heaps of sand into one, that doesn’t mean I’ve decreased the number of objects in the world, because the number of sand particles did not change. Similarly, Parchment_N+1 is formed of the same number of fundamental objects (atoms, quarks, electrons) that was included in the Parchment_N.
Also >>11418557
>We can just write "Parchment N" on parchment N. There's no need for a new piece of paper.

>>11418573
>It's a mangled version of "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves,"
this is pretty much what I was going for.
>But there's no a priori reason we couldn't just write "Parchment N" on Parchment N
And in doing so you've created a new object, according to Sharperlyerly

>>11418581
>And in doing so you've created a new object, according to Sharperlyerly
That's his misstep —writing on a piece of paper doesn't make a new object; it only modifies an existing object.

>>11418576
>because the number of sand particles did not change.
equating "object" with atomic particle (which is the logical conclusion of your rationale) is very un-nuanced, Mr. Weasleykins. In your world the objects ship, goose, transformer, anon, etc do not exist, but are rather just collections of atoms.

>>11418292
>its Johnny Rotten, notorious agitator and provocateur.
Hahahaha

>>11418587
So I'm looking at two checks. One is a check made for $1,000,000 from me to you. The other is a check for $15 to pay for my sonic plushie. Those are the same object to you?

imagine being dumb enough to write fanfiction about your shitty undergraduate courses in philosophy.

>analytic philosophy
go back and read wittgenstein again. you must have missed something.

>>11418604
Are they on separate pieces of paper? If so, they're different objects. If not, they're the same object.

>>11418611
wittgenstein is not a analytic philosophy

>>11418590
I’m not sure how I would quantify the universe if it were finite. I would imagine that a joule would be fundamental enough. If matter cannot be destroyed, them energy is also conserved, and since energy can not be created, Parchment_N+1 wouldn’t create energy.

>analytic philosophy

>he unironically reads """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""analytic philosophy""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

>>11418638
>>11418640
based and redpilled

>>11418638
>>11418640
>>11418642
fuck off samefag continental retard.
>he actually believes his feelings count as philosophy

how can you all not cringe at this?

>>11418638
>>11418640
>>11418642
>>11418647
>>11418648
This was all me. Unironically.

POSSIBLE GIRLS lmao

>>11418615
Okay, so a check from me to you for $1, and then I modify the check by adding a few zeros. Same object?
>>11418648
It's satire, my anon.

>>11418659
Same object.

>>11418648
>unironically using the word "cringe"

Great story OP.
Sharperly of course makes the mistake of assuming he will always have more ink to write with, so he had already assumed infinitely much matter to work with.

>>11418665
>Same object.

>>11418669
>so he had already assumed infinitely much matter to work with.
unironically based and redpilled

People who take analytic philosophy seriously (that is to say, more so than "continental") are honestly pathetic. I once knew a guy doing phil in undergrad and the school was mainly analytic. Basically an autistic incel. This convinced me that analytic philosophy was for literal retards and betas. I'm sorry but all of you are cringe. Now if you don't mind I shall return to reading Nietzsche.

Analytic philosophy = mindless babble.

>>11418680
Well, since I can't convince you that changing the text on a piece of paper doesn't change it into a new object, can I at least sell you on the idea that "changing the text on a piece of paper doesn't change the number of objects that exist"?

Going back to the example of Parchment N, adding a new list item doesn't just create a new list; it destroys the previous list. This is because as soon as that new list item is added, Parchment N is no longer Parchment N. In effect, it becomes Parchment N+1.

Given this, we could anticipate that the list will change, and, rather than adding "Parchment N" to the list, we could add "Parchment N+1" to the list, so that the paper becomes "Parchment N+1" as the addition is made, and the infinite regress is cut off.

>>11418287
>>11418290
>>11418292
>>11418325
>>11418342
>>11418345

>>11418739
I laughed far too loud at that image anon

>>11418456
>>implying analytic philosophers read pre-analytic philosophy
------------------------------------------------------
>It is a Friday, and the end of the first week of the new semester at the University of Tottingham
>Professor Longbottom arrives to administer the first discussion section for his History of Philosophy course
>the topic of discussion: Frege's paper On Sense and Reference

>>11418439
>>11418456
>Ashely, you silly bitch, Sharpeerly quite clearly said an infinite regress had been shown. That is the connection between his argument and Aristotle, though they are not the same argument
>I suggest you stop reading secondary literature on the literary criticism of the World's Spirit and pay more attention to your critical reasoning 101 course

>>11418766
>Not, On Sense and Nominatum

Cant even pretend persuasively

Is philosophy at university actually like this? I'm debating transferring from my stem meme degree (I hate it) for it.

>>11418837
>transferring out of STEM
never gonna make it

op are you a stemlord?

>>11418669
this

>>11418837
Can't speak to the logic classes (I, too, have a stem meme degree, and only take phil courses to stay busy when the meme degree is too ez), but this seems pretty accurate.

Intro to philosophy was:
>read 40-50 pages
>ten minutes of lecture followed by an hour of seminar discussion
>one page paper due at the end of the week
>ten page papers for the midterm and the final
I was taking my "logic for CS majors" class at the same time, so in the final paper I used boolean algebra to get autistic about definitions. Prof. told me I should read Russel, and the rest is history.

Aesthetics was almost the opposite:
>read 10 or fewer pages
>hour lecture followed by ten minutes of discussion
>four five-page papers, plus two art projects for the midterm and final
I deliberately contradicted everything the professor said, and got an A-. He was cool, gave me some good album recs when I mentioned Girl Talk, Saint Pepsi, and plunderphonics in my second essay.

Phil of Language and Mind was pure autism:
>alternate between two textbooks, reading 20-30 pages from each before every class (plus an essay from a third source)
>lecture lasted the whole class period, but you could raise your hand to object any time, so students deliberately said stupid or pedantic shit to keep the professor from getting to all his points
>sometimes the professor would just not bring up the readings at all and tell anecdotes about the time he spent in Vienna
>instead of essays, we had to fill out vocab charts (yes, like the ones you used to do in elementary school)
>there was no midterm, but the final was a 40-page paper where we had to psychoanalyze our friends
>there was also a "quantitative" section where we made pie charts about what sorts of phrases they used
I learned a lot and think about the class regularly, but boy did it feel like wankery in the midst of it.

Favorite class was definitely intro, though. I was the biggest pedant in the room, and it actually got me laid.

>>11418848
>t. pic related

>>11418754
all me

>>11418739
The two things you mentioned in your first paragraph are rather interdependent. No, if you cant convince me that a check worth $1 isn't different than a check worth $1,000,000, and thus isnt a different, new object, then you cant convince me of your second claim.

>>11418944
Doesn't changing the amount on the check in some sense "destroy" the "old check"?

In your example, after you add all the zeros, the $1 check ceases to exist, and, at the same time, the $1,000,000 check comes into being. So, if there were N objects before you wrote, there were N - 1 + 1 (i.e. still N) objects after you wrote. This is true even if you've created a new object, because, again, the old one no longer exists.

>>11418764
Thanks mate.

Why does he assume spatial points are discrete units? What makes him think he's entitled to deal with natural numbers and not real numbers?

>>11418921
What?

>>11419141
>yet another gem

>>11419153
ideology

>>11419168
Philbook is alright sometimes.

>>11418944
the object is the same in both cases. it is only in the interpretation by the subject of the check that its social meaning differs by adding zeroes.

>>11419201

>>11418891
Lol at pic

My first introduction was actually analytic, I was rather young and the like so it had a profound influence on my babby steps in debate/ philosophy. Of course when realizing how fucked I was, I started with the Greeks.

>>11419205
based and marxpilled

>>11418345
>Sharperly slept anxiously that night, and awoke in the midst of a fever dream
>In his dream he'd been sitting on a bench in a pasture, watching sheep jump over the fence in front of him
>He counted the sheep, one by one. The sheep enumerated the natural numbers. Satisfied, he left his bench and walked out of the pasture.
>He was 20 meters away from the bench, when he looked back, and was horrified
>He saw one sheep jumping over the fence, and then circling back behind the bench, returning to the other side to repeat the process again
>Sharperly awoke and realized that he'd need to keep writing on the parchment over and over again
>"But that would require an infinite amount of ink!"

This thread is moot because no one fucking defined what an object is.

>>11419586
This thread is moot because no one laughed at the dozens of jokes I packed into the story, and instead sported over the punchline.
/lit/ is dead or maybe I'm just not very funny :-(

>>11419610
*sperged
heh, I swear I'm not phoneposting

>>11418837
Study econ and just do this shit in your spare time anon

>>11418648
embarrassing post

>>11419610
I laughed at
>(being sure to pronounce the symbol ∃)

good thread

>>11418944
>>11418961
You could go with either of these (even both), as they offer different functionality, obsessing over which is 'right' is aimless and avoids discerning their properties. I don't really understand what you guys are debating.

>>11419610
don't beat yourself up, I found it very funny and sent it to all my (one) analytic philosopher friend.

>>11418654
>>11418648
>>11418647
>>11418642
>>11418640
>>11418638
These are all in fact my posts.

>>11419610
>implying we're not just playing along
:^)

>>11418654
based

>>11419610
The little jokes, like the professor declaring the sum infinite when it’s actually 2? We got them. Again, it’s all well-done.

>>11418891
fuck i'm jelly sempai

where would you recommend I start with analytic phil/Russel?

I have a pretty decent background in continental philosophy, but not much of a math background

>>11418576
>>11418631

Kind of. As alluded in the story, the word object can be defined in such a way as to include compositions. That is, of course an argument of definitions and in the story it's a joke about how you can answer any question if you just change what the words mean.

The point is that none of this leads anywhere.

>>11418638
>>11418640
>>11418642
>>11418647
>>11418648
>>11418654
>>11420359
I must confess that I was the author of all of these posts

>>11421455
Read a logic textbook, then go for some of Russel's essays on set theory or his theory of names. I started with "On Denoting" and it wasn't too bad, just had to re-read a few sections several times.

If you wanna do a modest survey of the analytics, start with Aristotle, hit up Descartes, Hume, and Kant, then do Frege and Russel, followed by Witty. A background in these guys will give you a general idea of the field. From there you have to decide what specialty you want (phil. of science, phil. of mind, metaphysics, epistemology, decision theory [pic related], analytic feminism, etc.), and read the major authors in that field. plato.stanford.edu is a good resource.

>>11422881
Oh shit also the logical positivists, especially the vienna circle. Most people think their ideas are dead, but they were hugely influential.

>>11422881
so he spends one eternity in hell and two eternities in heaven. Where's the paradox?

>>11419610
Anon everyone enjoyed the thread, but making fun of an analytic undergraduate through harping on a common mistake in negation by having another student say semi-formally-autistically

>~(There are an infinite number of objects in the universe)

instead of saying it plainly like

>it is not the case that, there are an infinite number of objects in the universe

is not a knee slapper. Its enjoyable but cmon

>>11423046
Couple of problems with your question.

First, eternities don't end (because they go on forever; that's what makes them eternities), so Donald never leaves hell.

Second, there is no paradox, he just spends all eternity in hell.

The problem is this: At each deal, Donald is suffering for the promise of a future reward. But if he takes these deals forever, he never gets his reward. On the other hand, if he stops taking the deals at some point, he spends a finite amount of time in heaven, which will be less time than he could have spent in heaven if he spent another day in hell. So if he never leaves hell, he suffers without reward; but if he ever leaves hell, he gets less reward than he could have gotten.

In effect, the "rational" thing to do keeps Donald suffering forever. This is a recurring problem in decision theory —see also the tragedy of the commons and the dollar auction [pic related, but admittedly not the best] —which indicates that rational decision making, in some circumstances, just won't cut it. Which wouldn't be a problem for the layperson, but aggravates the hell out of a decision theorist, because the whole point of decision theory is to figure out how to get rational decision-making to "work."

>>11422881
He didn't read the story of Orpheus.

i swear a woman a made this thread

>>11419610
you aren’t, unirocinally

>>11418575
>implying James Joyce wasn't shitposting

>>11418287
good story. you should call it "infinite jest"

>>11420248
Anon 1:
>If you change the number on a check, you create a new object, and the number of objects in the universe goes up by one.
Anon 2:
>If you change the number on a check, you may create a new object, but you also destroy the old object, and so the number of objects in the universe stays the same.
Depending on which anon you agree with, OP's "proof" either holds or breaks down.

>>11423845
Don't know how the first one could ever be true. The original check would no longer exist, it's been modified. It would not exist in the present time.
If you would then include all objects across all points in time then of course it would be infinite.

>>11418287
did nobody in this thread take a single philosophy course or learn about the paradox of the ship of theseus?
how about this, a four-dimensional conception of the "worm" existing across space and time, with manifestations -- of the same whole or worm -- at local space(s)/time(s). this is not the time-slice theory. use of the term manifestations because these are only made to exist and therefore separate by acknowledgement itfp

>>11418287
>>11418290
>>11418292
>>11418325
>>11418342
>>11418345
Having studied analytic philosophy at university, reading this reminds why i hated it.

It's not that it's "bad philosophy", but that it has not literary quality, and its mixing of mathematics with languages is betrayal of a core tenet of philosophy, which is a clarity of language.

>>11418891
I'll outline my experience so far

Intro to philosophy
>Mostly modern metaphysics, (problems around identity, free will etc)
>Some Aesthetics (basically intros to Kant, Hegel, Heidegger etc)
>Intro Ethics
>decent class, and was quite easy to do well.

Overall it was pretty decent. Not a lot of work.

Intro Logic
>Essentially Tree-logic
>easy as fuck, if you come from a maths background

Intro to Greek philosophy
>Mostly centered around the presocratics.
>the most fun i've had in a philosophy class
>centered mostly on language and ontology, and also early cosmology.
>got me interested in studying ancient greek
>definitely the class that gets you thinking more fundamentally about things

Intermediate Logic
>much harder
>mostly theoretical, working within the framework of OP's use of language
>barely understood most of it.
>also moved onto aximoatic logic and natural deduction, which was much more time consuming but still interesting.

Intermediate Ethics
>centered mostly on metaethics, (cognitivism, error theory, non-cognitivism, realism etc)
>very autistic
>fairly easy, pretty short readings
>also focused on normative ethics, mainly on the debate between utilitarianism and deontology.
>class that probably had the most debate

My experience in metalogic has left me pretty disillusioned with analytic philosophy, and i don't see any point to studying it any further, because i see it as completely divorced from what philosophy really is about. (Thinking clearly and wisely about truth.) Continental philosophy suffers from similar problems in that it's fairly incoherent, but at least it is of a better literary quality and seeks to understand things relevant to human understanding. I miss reading philosophers like Plato, Hobbes, Kant, Hume etc. They had a clarity of thought that neither Analytics nor continentals possess.

tl;dr Start with the Greeks.

>>11419586
>the analytic philosopher needs a definition of "object" before he can begin
So, this is the power of autism

>>11418576
While the individual sand particles have not changed, how many sand clumps have changed. It isn't as simple as total mass, but all things matter and all things comprised of said matter. If I were to break a 4ft square table in half, I would have two 2x4s, which, in a physics understanding was always equal to the table, but the object that was the table no longer exists, and in it's place two new objects (the 2x4s) have been created. In addition, if one were to reduce the table as such, the essence of the table is destroyed, thus bringing the removal of the table within the universe to a totality. This removes the table (while bringing into being two planks) which means the count on the list would be -1 (+2 for consideration of the planks)

>>11420303
Care to explain the joke?

>>11424058
>tfw I'd actually enjoy Intermediate Logic
I gotta disagree with you on your analysis of analytic phil. If philosophy is about thinking clearly, then math will definitely help. Think about how much more clear physics is, for example, because we can use calculus to describe the motion of objects.

Plus, a lot of the logic papers I've read (I can't remember the name of my favorite, but it's about how all conceivability arguments are self-defeating) are actually very helpful.

Of course these sorts of micro-discussions make it harder to talk about the "big issues," but they're important, because if we want to get those big issues right, we have to get to our conclusions in valid ways.

>>11425406
Math helps, but most math is intuitive rather than rationally founded. Analytic phil attempts to go beneath that intuition into some sort of pre-hoc rationalisation that seems entirely unnecessary and needlessly over-complicated.

>>11418292
That summation is actually finite (geometric progression with 1/2 multiple). You can use something like 1+1/2+1/3... that is not obviously but infinite.

>assume
Stopped reading there.

Philosophy is a waste of time for this reason precisely.

>>11425659
Pretty sure it was just a typo, but nicely done regardless. Definitely in the spirit of the thread.

>>11425659
I think it's a joke. Its the "analytic philosophers are just failed mathematicians" meme.

>>11418345
The list is a concept, not an object.
If concepts are objects, then the proof would be very simple:
There are infinite numbers, each number is an object, therefore there are infinite objects in the universe. That's pure BS

*swishes robes*
Actually, the universe both one and infinitely divided. Here, I have some poetry as proof:
*dabs*

>>11425505
>most math is intuitive rather than rationally founded
Maybe if you’ve never studied number theory.