/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10288368
In short, yes. Making the likely assumption that the proofs exist, are finite in length, and can be made from existing characters, then making all combinations of characters with enough length would contain the proof.

However, you would have so many combinations, how would you even know where to look? You would have millions of almost proofs also that would say be off by one character or word. Sure, you could use sorting algorithms to help narrow it down, and you would probably get some good ideas by reading some of the results, but you would still have to do a massive amount of reading and sifting.

>>10288368
Not everything is provable.

>>10288368
>You would have millions of almost proofs also that would say be off by one character or word

you're off by a few orders of magnitude.

there are 2^1000000 1mb files.

>In short, yes

well, only if it's provable and the proof fits in a 100mb file.

>>10288368
https://libraryofbabel.info/
There you go.
>>10288516
Not quite. For example, one file could be the part one, and another the part two, etc.

>>10288521
Really interesting, thanks for the link

>>10288521

You could just get a monkey, a typewriter, and infinite time.

>>10288509
Prove it

But wait, if you can't prove it, that proves that something is unprovable
If you can prove it, that also proves it

My brain is full of fucks now

>>10288641
Reminds me of the halting problem, it's probably undecidable.

>>10288641
Literally:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems

>>10288641

We prove things are unprovable all the time. (Well unprovable in a consistent system)

>infinite monkey theorem

>>10288641
ahahahahah
look at that absolute brainlet

>>10288596

>>10288368
proof of the Riemann hypothesis won't be

>>10289020
no matter how many times you post it, its still full of shit

>>10288368
Reimann obviously ended up as attention whore.

It would probably contain a string of characters (or rather a sequence of strings) that constitute a proof within some L-structure of which they are a substructure, but it would also be isomorphic to a infinite number of formulas and proofs in other L-structures over the signature (i.e. set of symbols) that you're using (not to mention any signatures which are isomorphic to the signature that you happen to be working in).

>>10288368
Reality is you won't.

>>10289020
>numbers in the neigh-
>borhood of
beautiful

>>10288368
Depends, are you sure the proof of the Riemann hypothesis fits on a 100mb pdf?

>>10288368
Yes but I think it would be hard to find it

>>10288368
Probably. I am not sure how you would search through the file. I suppose there would be a subset you can look through for proofs that begin a certain way. Suppose a simple tautological proof, but we want it to be of a particular form:
For every step s, within a proof, s_x = s_0 is the concluding result of the step. In these particular proofs it would be ideal to immediately know when we have found one, so at the start of the string of digits is actually the repeated list of all member steps of the proof in the form of s_0 = {s_0, s_1, . . . , s_n}
Still, even if this is done there would be a large number to sort through so I imagine approaches like this would have to be repeated a great many number of times.

>>10288521
>>10288596

>>10288641

>>10288521
Fun fact, this is based on a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, who used to live on the same town where i live. My house is a few blocks away from his museum.

>>10288673
If you prove that RH is unprovable, then RH is true, since RH being false would be provable (using the counter example).

>>10291875
I'm pretty sure that's true if you're working with the rational or even the algebraic completion of the rationals.
But I kinda doubt it is for the complex numbers. The reals weird out every now and then.

>>10290528
see
>>10288521

>>10288368
Even if it was, it would be burried under unspeakable amounts of loli incest fanfiction.

>>10291875
>If you prove that RH is unprovable, then RH is true
That's a contradiction, retard

>>10293360
it isnt

>>10293360

>>10288603
>>10288722
Literally retarded. Just because random keys are pressed for an infinite amount of time does not necessarily mean every combination possible will be typed.

>>10293445
every combination has a 100% chance of being typed, but if thats not good enough for you, you could just make every combination be made in increasing order

>>10291906
No, it is true. Proving it is unprovable means you've shown it's impossible to find a counterexample, so it is true.

>>10293468
>every combination has a 100% chance of being typed
False. It's possible only one combination could repeat infinitely.

>>10293485
there is a 0% chance of that happening
i dont think you know how probability works with infinity

>>10293491
Negligible != 0. There's no metaphysical reason something cannot repeat ad infinitum. If mathematics cannot state this, the problem is with mathematics and not reason.

>>10293481
Yeah, that's what you'd think normally. But consider the continuum hypothesis: Godel showed its unprovable from ZFC. You might think "well, then that's proof of it, since otherwise we could give the example of a set that has cardinality between aleph 0 and aleph 1".
But no one actually says that, or thinks that, because sets are extremely finicky stuff.
The real numbers are similarly finicky, and I'm not a set theorist, but it's possible that statement is false.

>>10293503
The probability of it repeating infinitely, when it's random, is exactly 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

>>10293481
>Being unprovable means that I'm not provable
>Being an open set means I'm not closed

>>10293509
I replied to you that math was flawed if it could not account for this metaphysically possible notion and you simply retorted with another mathematical postulate. Unless you can tell me why logically, something cannot repeat infinitely, we are not having the same discussion.

>>10293503
the probability of typing a is 1/26
the probability of typing a, n times in a row is 1/26^n
as n approaches infinity, 1/26^n approaches 0
mathematics states this perfectly

anything infinitely negligible has a 0% chance of happening
this does not mean it doesnt happen, i never said that, but it still has a 0% chance of happening

>>10293519
It CAN repeat infinitely, get this in your head. The probability of that just happens to be 0.

Just like a random number from 0 to infinity can be 5, the probability just is 0%.

i dont think you know how probability works with infinity
>>10293503
>>10293519
maybe read what i wrote before you think youre too smart for math or something

also, >>10293509
isnt me, but hes right

>>10293522
>>10293526
Perhaps it's the two of you who would benefit from better reading comprehension skills. I never once mentioned nor alluded to probability theory because it clearly doesn't represent an accurate account of reason. It behooves the both of you to take this into consideration.

>It CAN repeat infinitely
Good. You're getting closer.

>>10288521

>>10293540
youre fucking retarded
the reason it has a 0% chance is not because it cant happen, but because chance also deals with every other possibility you moron
there are infinitely many other things that can happen if something has a 0% chance
it is entirely reasonable and you have no valid issues with it, you just cant accept that you've been acting like a retard for the last 5 replies

dealing with the 0% chance possibility is literally talking about the most unimportant thing imaginable
its even more retarded than arguing semantics
until you roll nothing but heads in a row infinitely often i wont give more than half a shit about something with a 0% chance

the odds literally could not be more against something happening

>>10293573
>its even more retarded than arguing semantics
It's ironic you didn't recognize while typing this that your preceding verbal diarrhea constituted just that. There's no need to define chance nor what we take to mean "0 percent." You should study more metaphysics or formal logic if you can't think beyond mathematical terminology.

>>10293591
jump off a bridge
everything youre trying to say is perfectly communicated through probability
you have contributed absolutely nothing to this entire thread

>>10291875
Idk what RH is but if you prove something is unprovable then it is not decided whether its true or not.
If what you say is true then proving that something is unprovable would be a proof which is a contradiction.

>>10293607
>I on the other hand visit /sci/ to contribute my wealth of knowledge!
Practice a little less hubris and a little more reading comprehension and humility. Good day.

>>10293615
>saying good day
what a faggot
cant actually say anything of value so he just tries to act like a shit stain
pussy running away from an argument since he doesnt know what hes talking about

(you) is pic related

>>10293624
Bruh I’m on your team but chill

>>10293632
it happens every thread
i swear its the same guy, has the same grammar and everything
hes just started to piss me off so much
sorry, hold me back

>>10293624
>conditioning a nigga to instantly flip out at your grammar
My idol.

>>10293360
if rh is unprovable, that means that there is no zero off the critical line, because then it would be falsifiable by finding that zero

>>10289020
>neighborhood of infinity
>real numbers
lmaoo

>>10288368
I would never find the proof. That library of yours is completely useless. It's enough that you imagine that the library exist, just like you can imagine that the proof exists. You are just as close to finding the proof