/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15852866
>>15852832
>>15852836
>>15852848
People still [math]\mathbf{do}[/math] math with pen and paper, you massive midwit.
Stop being such a baby and get used to index notation already, undergrad. You will never amount to anything if you throw childish temper tantrums over conventions people far smarter than you have used to accomplish great things.
Not to mention, if your alternative is supposedly this much superior, why not write a university-level math book in it? Oh right because you're nothing more than a mischievous shitposter with little to say. Go back to doing homework, son

>>14819406
the only sane thing to do is reject LEM, Powerset, full Separation and keep your theory consistent with all functions N->N being recursive, making N^N subcountable. Adopt dependent choice if you must, but keep in mind that if you don't, you can make the Dedekind reals countable in some weird ass topos and that's cool in itself. Induction for N suffices for math, take a look at SOL arithmetic.

>>14806574
>people need to replicate your experiments to demonstate that
Disproving the conservation of angular momentum would require a frictionless environment per the definition thereof, and producing all that would as such be too much of a hassle.
Mandlbaur is terrible at getting his point across or addressing any kind of criticism, hence why nobody is ready to put this much work into such a useless experiment. For instance, it has been mentioned to him several times that, per Noether's Theorem, falsification of the conservation of angular momentum would imply anisotropy of space, by virtue of which rotationally symmetric objects cannot exist in space. He has yet to address any of that criticism. Do not compare yourself to Mandlbaur since you keep on posting studies and also replied to a lot of criticism, like deferoxamine causing cancer or anemia.
In the end, I fully agree that those people stalking him on r/Mandlbaur are obsessed little faggots, many of whom themselves know jack-shit about physics.

Set theory is important because it is a theory of integers, models of axiom systems, infinite ordinals, and real numbers, all in one unified structure. This allows it to serve as a foundation for all of mathematics, anything you talk about in mathematics can be formalized in set theory naturally and easily, and studying set theory allows you to prove theorems about mathematics itself. The formulation of set theory in the late 19th century motivated the metamathematics of the 20th century, with all the astonishing results about provability.

Howdy there partner!

I've been seeing you post those real numbers here lately. Y'know we don't take kindly to those hooligans around these parts. Sorry to say buckaroo, but I'm going to have to ask you to stop. You should know by now infinity is inherently a flawed concept.

Stay out of trouble partner. Yeehaw!