/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9729441
You just finished proclaiming QFT has been successful and i asked for an example in the past decade and you have none.
Would the past 20 years be more allowable?

How about literally anything after the 70's.

Hell, lasers probably could have come about under any different way of thinking to not give credence to quantum at this point.

Success story my ass, it got lucky once and then never again.

>>9643758
Good job. You deserve prison.

Given you're a weeb, you familiar with Monty Oum? He died from medical malpractice.

Not gonna lie, the medical industry is a morbid perversion of anything natural and good. You ultimately didn't have a career in the long run, and you would have killed someone eventually.

Real life isn't House M.D.

>>9579558
>y-you touch your brain
>i-i was only pretending to be retarded
Thats going in the archive too.

>>9553340
>9/9 = 0.9...
wew

Is infinity a number?
>no
Does infinity - n or infinity + n intelligibly evaluate?
>no
What is infinity?
>the concept of a number greater than all real numbers
By counting in increments, can you reach infinity?
>no
Is infinity endless, without end, with an undefined end?
>yes
Is infinity well defined?
>it is only defined by how undefinable it is, thus cannot be used in any definite way
Is there a better value to use when thinking of largest numbers?
>yes, a local Maximal Real Number
What is a local maximal real number?
>the greatest finite number in a set or series. In a set from 1-9, 9 is the local maximal real number. If [20] is appended to the set, 20 becomes the local maximal real number
What if i'm a lazy mathlet retard and don't want to write out really big, super long finite numbers?
>then just invoke "local maximal real number" LMRN
What if i want to append greater values to a set forever?
>then at every instance of appending, there is a new LMRN to replace the last
What if I want to concatenate an eternity of everlasting appending to the idea that it has completed this work?
>Then it obviously didn't go on forever, and is therefore finite
Is LMRN < infinity?
>conceptually, yes.
Can you do intelligible arithmetic with an LMRN?
>LMRN-1 = LMRN-1; LMRN+1 = LMRN+1; so yes.
Has infinity been misused, abused, and generally misunderstood in classical msthematics, thereby invalidating them from producing intelligible answers to questions?
>yes
Are humans perfect and infallible?
>absolutely not
Does that mean we have to fix math because it is broken?
>of course