[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 67 KB, 1280x720, wild hamburger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10777268 No.10777268 [Reply] [Original]

>Proof:Observe!

>> No.10777701
File: 22 KB, 292x359, OC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10777701

>> No.10777716
File: 407 KB, 1400x1279, ourguy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10777716

NJ > Lubos > LMC > based matt > Witten

>> No.10778020

>>10777268
>Proof:Observe!
The proof lies in empiricism, yet mathematics seeks the universal determination which cannot be extracted from the multitude of sensory representation, no matter how numerous of a content we have.

>> No.10778034

>>10778020
If you want to sound smart, you first need to learn how to formulate an English sentence correctly.

>> No.10778061

>>10778020
you had a hard time figuring out what i was trying to say, didnt you?

>> No.10778069

>>10777716
In order of level of mental illness.

>> No.10778093
File: 25 KB, 1200x1200, 1200px-Square_root_of_2_triangle.svg[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10778093

>>10778034
>>10778061

>> No.10778102

>>10778093
Yep, this
Is it Kant who has the whole thing about how sensory experience allows the eventual possibility of the general representation of the abstract, or is that Schopenhauer?

>> No.10778130

>>10778093
As devil's advocate isn't that just a property of our representation

>> No.10778133

>>10778130
Not really. It's a consequence of the definitions. Those definitions can be representations, but they don't have to be-- this is still true a priori

>> No.10778151

>>10778133
As truly wild speculation, if there were to come advanced information processing material that could render that ratio in an eventually terminating sequence,

Or if the universe collapsed (I personally don't believe in a closed universe that will experience collapse, but for the sake of argument) would either of those be a proof against our current understanding

>> No.10778154

>>10778151
>>10778133
Meaning, if the universe collapsed and And that meant the sequence terminated (i realize this is silly but bear with me)

>> No.10778163

>>10778151
>>10778154
The whole point is that the sequence doesn't terminate. Here's why: https://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/q1.html

And no, in just the same way that burning the last piece of paper with the above proof wouldn't change its status

>> No.10778172

>>10778163
Forgot that sexy proof by contradiction, even though it's obvious

Thanks brej

>> No.10778174

>>10778172
the link literally is the sexy proof by contradiction

it's 1 AM here and I'm too tired to reconstruct it off the cuff

>> No.10778177

>>10778102
>western philosophers
not even once

>> No.10778199

>>10778163
then how do you go to check equality?

>> No.10778206

>>10777268
>implying Mathologer doesn't do the same
empiric evidence is still evidence

>> No.10778207

>>10778199
Apply the laws of algebra until the expression is equal to the square root of two

>> No.10778215

>>10778207
No, this only works for few objects that happen to be algebraic. How do I check equality for the vast majority of objects you pretend exist?

>> No.10778222

>>10778215
>>10778215
I'm not sure what you mean by "pretend". Irrational and transcendental numbers exist, at least within the formal system of mathematics. They're attested in all of our models of nature. Even i, the square root of -1, shows up in many physical formulae

>> No.10778228

>>10778215
>>10778222
And now that I think about it, your question doesn't really make sense. Why would you need to check equality? The whole point is that these numbers are not computable, they can only be estimated to a certain number of digits

>> No.10778230

>>10778222
not so subtle way to dodge a question.

Some of these numbers can't even "exist" in nature because their kolmogorov complexity would be higher than the number of particles in the universe.

>> No.10778239

>>10778230
I'm a formalist. I wouldn't be foolish enough to suggest that these numbers exist "in nature", just that they must exist in mathematics. They are attested in mathematical models of nature

>> No.10778240

>>10778228
I need to check equality (or inequality) to make sure that these numbers are actually different from one another and they have a chance of existing.

One of the first things to do when you develop a system is say what equality looks like.

>> No.10778243

>>10778206
>empiric evidence
that's an oxymoron

>> No.10778252

>>10778239
>I'm right because these numbers exist in nature!
>but I'm right because I don't care if these numbers exist in nature!

>> No.10778254

>>10778172
>>Forgot that sexy proof by contradiction,
proof by contradiction only works on brainlet logic for undergrads like FOL. Patricians use non classical logic where proof by contradiction is used on decidable equality only so only up to Q

>> No.10778260

>>10778243
and you are the moron in this case

>> No.10778264

>>10778240
By Dedekind cuts. You keep cutting into the set of reals until you hit a discrepancy in the intervals.

Equality in the reals is just the equivalence relation where the set of equivalence classes of the relation is equipotent to the set of the real numbers itself.

Equality is an elementary concept.

>> No.10778270

>>10778252
I offered the nature thing as an additional justification. The formal system by itself is sufficient to prove their existence

>> No.10778275
File: 82 KB, 1033x581, phi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10778275

>>10778102
>>10778130
>>10778133
>>10778151
>>10778154
>>10778163
>>10778172
>>10778174
>>10778199
>>10778207
>>10778215
>>10778222
>>10778228
>>10778230
>>10778239
>>10778240
>>10778254

>>10778252
>>10778252
>>10778252
>>10778252

>> No.10778305
File: 660 KB, 372x280, gwh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10778305

>>10777716
>>10778069
I'll wager based LMC isn't even crazy (unless you caught him schizoposting and I didn't see it)
imo he's an 8th grade wizkid fusion of the entire top row, luboš, and 6ix9ine. I miss /ourguy/

>> No.10778963

>>10778264
I can't keep cutting until I hit a discrepancy and guarantee my procedure terminates at some point.

>> No.10778990

>>10778963
You can cut your veins though.

>> No.10779347

Let N be the largest finite number that can be computed in the total lifespan in the universe. Take the decimal representation of [math] \pi = \sum_{0}^{\infty} a_{i} 10^{i} [/math]. Then the partials sums [math] \sum_{0}^{n} a_{i} 10^{i} [/math] for [math] n \geq N [math] are formally different from pi but there is no way to prove this other than "they're defined to be different". How do we even know they exist? We can't even constructively prove the existence of N+1.