/sci/ - Science & Math

alright, so what's the largest number?

>>11319349
no such thing.
infinity is true btw, just not a number

>>11319349
Numbers aren't real, they're subjective.

>>11319352
Please explain. I haven't found a single satisfactory proof of it. And yet, our entire philosophical tradition rests on this dumbfuck belief.

>>11319357
>confusing physics and math
definition of inf:
-unbounded value
-bigger than any real number

>>11319357
>confusing physics and math
definition of inf:
-unbounded value
-bigger than any real number

>>11319361
What I'm suggesting is that "numbers" themselves aren't universal, they're unreliable as evidenced by irrational numbers, and are ultimately subject to a finite precedent that exists before it. Infinity can't be proven, then, and is wrong as such.

>>11319367
>Infinity can't be prove
3.8754799 can't be proven

>>11319373
Agreed, so why do people insist on the religious belief that is "infinity" then?

>>11319382
that's how logic works
logic tree is built on axioms

some axioms are better than others, and turn out to be useful
infinity has turned out to be a useful one, in the sense that it then leads to results that seem useful in engineering, physics etc.

Axioms don't have to be"truth" for logic to work.
You can start with weird axioms and build a huge complicated logic tree upon them and it it's all logically sound.
In physics, scientists worry if the axioms are compatible with reality.
Math is less restricted.

>>11319397
That's fine, I'm not disputing it's use value. I'm disputing it's truth.

>>11319398
proof is in the pudding

>>11319402
Nope

>>11319341
>>11319341
what exactly do you mean by "infinity" and what specific problems do you have with it ? in mathematics we use this symbol a lot, but it always has a very lucid meaning. for example [math]\lim_{x \to 0}f(x) = \infty[/math] literally means that around [math]x = 0[/math] the functions gets larger than any prescribed bound, example being [math]f(x) = \tfrac{1}{x^2}[/math]. what's so bad about this statement ?

>>11319341
infinity is true and its material / spatial by logic and thermodynamics op. just cuz things are in different quantities elsewhere in some spaces less in others more dont mean infinity aint real

>>11319341
>when it's observably not true
math isn't science therefore observation is irrelevant

>>11320914
You know science implies observation and math implies no observation aren't the same thing, right?

>>11319402
But the pudding tastes awful.

>>11319341
>Why do people believe in zero when it's observably not true? Squares, with dimension zero, are geometrically non existent. Why do people believe in zero then? Isn't it just a leap of faith? There's no logical proof for it, as it's evident maths breaks down at times and isn't a universal.

^what your dumbarse sounds like

>>11321329
Well actually, I would posit that 0 doesn't exist either. Call me dumb if you want, but you can't prove the existence of 0 or infinity. 0 is a context and infinity is a concept. A square is a square, and precedes the subjectivity of maths as a language, which is why you get failures like the square root of 2

>>11319341
it exists because we created it. if you want to be autistic what is any number? what is “two”, really?

>>11321631
>existence of 0
ok virgin

>>11321638
Right, but it's not real. "2" is a representation of something that precedes maths itself, then. We can define objects with it. Nothing precedes infinity, as it isn't true, it's a false concept that represents "biggest thing possible", but is zealously guarded by all as a religious conviction. It is to modernity what "God" was to Christian Europe and so on. An excuse.

>>11321640
Right. Now you see exactly how dumb it is to believe the existence of infinity too. How can "nothing" exist? It's an illogical statement. In this sense, how can infinity, which is also nothing in essence, exist?

>>11319341
Prove that the first whole number after 1 is 2.

>>11321657
1+1=2

But this is subjective representation, ampliative of a precedent

>>11321631
yea ur right 0 doesnt exist. everything is in quantities in the universe cuz its infinite you can quantify whatever the fuck you want.

existence is unironically infinity this is no theory but its mundane as fuck and its really nothing special. uncaring infinity cool, we can use the materials that always been there to be creative with them however we can.

>>11321677
Braindead religion

>>11319341
Then how many digits are in pi?

>>11321653
>How can "nothing" exist?
lots of virgins out there

>>11321818
Infinite, which is proof mathematics is wrong.

>>11321832
>i've never built anything complicated
calculus is everywhere in engineering

>>11321631
Proof of 0: How many women have you had sex with? Q.E.D.

>>11319398
Truth doesn't exist you moron

>>11321898

>>11321898
It might exist
but we cant know

>>11321898
Then how can you assess the validity of that statement, if you can't determine if its the truth?

>>11319341
>no such thing as infinity
As far as we can tell, time is infinite. It will never end.

Checkmate.

>>11321939
it will never get there tho

>>11321970
Well no, but that's the whole point of infinity. Endless. Limitless. Perpetual.

>>11321939
>>11321970
You have obviously never owned a stopwatch and don't realize you can end time at any arbitrary point you choose.

>>11321983
Time is a property of the universe dipshit. Your watch has nothing to do with it.

>>11321992
>A timepiece has nothing to do with time
Yea sure, dummy.

>>11322007
>humans dictate the nature of the universe
You wish, retard.

>>11322015
I always forget that it was an apple that invented physics and the concept of time not humans.

How can something be infinite if it has a beginning but no end or vice versa?

>>11322049
phase change, infinite magnitude within finite polarities

Also beginnings and ends would be arbitrary illusions from inside an endless loop.

>>11322049
https://youtu.be/i7c2qz7sO0I?t=1m20
for example, the amount of natural numbers is the same as the amount of integers, aleph-null

>>11319341
Observer = Infinity
Participle = Eternity (Real Number line)

>>11319341
population argument and false given-consensus

>>11319341
it isn't a "belief" energy flows in a torus pattern nothing in this reality is linear, that is an illusion of the human mind

>>11321631
>A square is a square
Is there even such a thing outside of maths? You can't construct squares irl

>>11319398
a number doesn't have a truth quality, like.. a rock isn't true or false. rocks don't have a boolean quality. number's don't have a boolean quality.

it's like you're saying, "im not disputing the value of infinity, just the color of it."

obligatory fucking retard
fucking retard

>>11322193
Infinity is obviously the color white since white is the combination of all the other colors, who would even argue that fact?

>>11322193
A rock is true in the sense we can define it by its bounds. We can't process that (and thus define it) without a harmonic precedent. Its truth is its objectivity.

Maths is not universal, in that it is a subjective language that aims to explain what is true, but as evidenced with irrational numbers it breaks down and is not sufficient for use. We start maths with "1+1=2" and go from there, which means maths is ultimately limited from what its nexus dictates and can't explain the entire truth.

This is why illogical concepts like infinity are used (and have use value -- they in essence mean 'largest possible number'), but it doesn't prove infinity, because of its subjectivity.

As such, there is no viable mathematical proof of infinity, especially when you examine the inertia of geometry that precedes maths, which requires the process of time. 1+1 = 2 is a process, a square is inert.

>>11323133
>we can define it by its bounds
nah, there's always atoms floating about, constantly coming off and reattaching the surface - your definition is just a normie popsci bs one

>>11319341
>observable not true
Explain to me how the fuck gravitational potential energy works then if the concept of an infinite distance doesn't exist

>>11323781
it's just jews grabbing grant money

>observably not true
appearances can be misleading

infinity is just an abstraction you dumb fucks (and abstraction can be classified as infinity)

t. category theorist

>>11323133
>in that it is a subjective language that aims to explain what is true
nope. you keep saying this and you’re wrong everytime.

>>11319349
whats the longest string of letters ?

>>11319341
no actual infinity, only potential infinity. read a book

>>11319357
>needs proof for a defintion
get the fuck off my board! REEEEEEEEEE!

>>11321939
>time is infinite
>began at the big bang
bruh

>>11326318
So are the natural numbers not infinite because they begin at 0?

>>11326318
>>11322093

>>11319367

You are absolutely correct. Numbers are a human invention and tool. The universe is actually incommeasurable. Not trolling. You are one of the few who get this

>>11326522
Being this sure about what numbers are is why you don't get it.

>>11319341
>>a number larger than the number of possible discrete states of the universe
>just add one to it, bro
This is you.