/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12580473
>removing those that do not encode a Turing machine which produces a computable number
>just solve the halting problem bro!

>>12464092
Also,
>There is (almost) no absolute truth in math
This is the result of decades of indoctrination with infinitist nonsense. Kek imagine being so confused by the flawed foundations that it makes you give up on absolute truth itself.
And you have the gall to call US the schizos similar to flat-earthers. This is seriously comical.

>>12379268
LOL. Your response is very funny.
Here, I also came up with an uncomputable number.
To get the first digit, you go to your neighbor, ask them about their day, encode their answer with some fixed encoding scheme and maybe add 3 if you like. Then put 1 if the resulting number is even and 0 otherwise.
An interesting number you get.
If you ask some other person to perform the same experiment, they might get a different result, but it's actually the same well-defined number. The reason you get different results is that it's an incomputable number.
Even though it's an incomputable number and the only way to get it is to perform an infinitely many experiments which give you random gibberish each time, it's still a perfectly valid number (because it is incomputable) and you are hereby legally required to treat it with respect and dignity just like regular numbers 1,2,3.

I'll start
>induction on natural numbers

>>11883881
>it works better than every other method we have discovered until know
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
>A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments).[8] In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did.
oh no nonononononon ahahahahahhaa

>>11762657
Dude just accept it, you're wrong. Your argument doesn't work. If it did, you would be able to write it out in full but you haven't because you can't, because there's no actual argument. Just stop.

>>11570457
Circular proof is when you assume the conclusion. Perhaps when you do maths, it's circular: that we can believe. But good mathematics is not circular.

>>11542673