/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16191366
Out of all the faggots on this board, those memelords are least of /sci/'s problems.

MATH

Anything is based if it uses nonstandard axioms.

>>15169294
>he then posted a wojak

>>15118799
learn how to do math without reals

The winter cup starts this month on the 27th, we're still voting on players for /sci/'s roster this upcoming tournament
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSepFnVjPhMbN7JiCy43Suf8qqFnrLn_n0MQj8PY-D_dpRxYJA/viewform?usp=sf_link

More information here:
https://implyingrigged.info/wiki//sci/
https://implyingrigged.info/wiki/2023_4chan_Winter_Cup

>>11962401
>repeat to infinity
and therein lies the problem

>>11940164
>>11940973
"real" numbers don't exist

>>11934708

>>11666003

>>>/wsg/3433241
Moment of truth

>>11527040
It most certainly does not. "Real numbers" don't exist.

>>11283611
>implying real numbers exist
(They dont)

>>11281519
>Implying real numbers exist
They dont

>>11044104
Like >>11044124 and >>11044126 said, mathematics sounds like a good fit. Maybe throw in some comp sci too (contrary to what some /sci/autists might say).

Also
>animals but mostly women
>implying they're not the same

>>10576537
How do you know there is no pattern that ever repeats? You would have to know an infinite number of digits and inspect them in order to say "yep, there is no pattern here". But you can't know an infinite sequence of digits, so you can't inspect it, and so you can't know whether irrational numbers are truly non-periodic.

You can have an indirect proof of it by proving that an irrational cannot be written as a quotient of two integers and by proving that any periodic number can be written as a quotient of two integers, but that relies on a lot of assumptions about numbers that we make in mathematics so I don't think it really amounts to anything much in the real world.

""""REAL""""

Cantor was wrong and you should feel wrong

Do you believe in Calculus?

I might understand it at a conceptual level, but do you really think physical space and time are continuous? Are the methods of Calculus just a convenient model to approximate the physical world? Will we ever find a better way?

>>9969831
>Science has needed philosophy the whole of this century to be understandable.

Please. Science barely needs mathematics, let alone philosophy. Engineers in the 18th and 19th centuries have been building incredible technologies with faulty mathematics and shaky theoretical foundations. "It works" is literally the only criterion of successful science. One can jerk off all day to string theory, but until "it works" any theory is just scrap paper.

>>9889090
>that's like asking what the last digit of pie is
>pie
I knew this was a troll, but you might wanna try a little harder next time if you want to have fun fucking with people
Watch some NJWildBerger and start parroting what he says, then come back with this argument