/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12437900
If you say that a square with a side length of 1 exists, and that the length of the diagonal exists, then yes. Otherwise I need clarification about your actual question.

>>12437900
Same with a circle of diameter 1.
Many such cases.

>>12437938
Okay, but is the length of the diagonal irrational? Math says it is, but has it been experimentally corroborated?

>>12438046
Yes. How much do you know about quantum computers?

>>12437900
Mathematics is an abstraction. No mathematical object exists physically.

>>12438054
I'm not interested in discussing sci-fi.

>>12437900
Draw a right angle triangle with sides of some 1 unit length. What is the length of the hypotenuse?

>>12438177
Quantum computers already exist.

>>12438229
Adding quantum to any random word doesn't make it sound futuristic or scientific, it just makes you look like a retard consoomer who watched too many Hollywood movies.

>>12437900
>Scientifically speaking, do irrational numbers exist?
No, the concept of an irrational number is not scientific.
The concept of an irrational number is as vague as that of an unbounded number, or an indescribable number, or a random number, or a digitless number, or a noncomplex number. Just because it makes sense to talk about rational number, doesnt mean that it also makes sense to speak of irrational numbers. What does that even mean?

>>12438290
You're a fucking retard. Get off /sci/ until you have at least a bachelor's degree.

>>12438220
Draw a penis on the blackboard? What is the length of that curve?

>>12437900
of course not. Science is rational. based in REASON. not faith. imagine believing in something as irrational as an irrational number, i suppose you believe in magic sky faeries as well?

>>12438335
Stop projecting, dumbass. I called you out for not even knowing what you're talking about, and now you're lashing out like a cornered animal. I was hoping you would learn from the experience and stop acting smarter than you really are, but now I can see you're hopelessly niggerbrained. You need to know your place and respect your intellectual betters. Now fuck off back to wherever midwit pseuds jerk each other off.

>>12438374
I wasn't the other guy you replied to.
You are not intelligent.

Scientifically speaking, maths is not science.
Stop making these low iq bait threads and go back to where you came from.

>>12437900
Yes. They are an identity principal for even roots.

>>12438381
I have screenshot evidence, samefag. Let this be a lesson for you, don't pretend to be a better man than you are. You don't know the extent to which you can embarrass yourself.

>>12438419
We can all edit webpages buddy.
I meant I'm not this guy >>12438054

>>12438425
So you admit you are >>12438229 and >>12438335 then?
So when you said
>I wasn't the other guy you replied to.
You were just being a knuckle-walking apebrained retard? Couldn't even follow a short, simple post?
Let me guess, you were just pretending to be BTFO'd?

>>12438413
Really? Can you link me to the study or lab report which measures these "identity principal for even roots" to be irrational?

>>12437900
No. Irrational numbers, by their definition, cannot be measured. So science cannot say anything about irrational numbers. Ultimately, it is a religion blindly accepted by mathematicians.

>>12438486
1 is the principal of identity also the base whole number component of all of the integers. Any root function can operate over the positive domain. Every even root cannot operate over the negative domain without an additional identity principle eg. i is needed and valid

>>12438659
Do you have a single experimental fact to back that up?

>>12438290
This, better watch out or he'll shoot us with his zapatron rifle

>>12438326

>>12438689
This conversation is more irrational than i. Keep your Marxism.

>>12438689
A mathematical proof of existence is an experimental fact.

>>12438910
Thus, The Fairy Queen.

>>12438922
If you can prove a fairy queen exists, then she exists. Go ahead.

>>12437900
Infinitards have been eternally btfo'd. You have never seen an irrational number of things, it doesn't exist. In the 21st century maths will become about usefulness. Not a bunch a pseud bullshit about infinities.

>>12438941
There was an example already given itt

If irrational numbers don't exist, couldn't the same argument be made that non-integer rational numbers don't exist either? Everything you've seen is made of a whole number of subatomic particles

>>12438997
Yeah except rational numbers have a meaningful definition while the reals dont.

>>12438932
She can prove herself. I haven't seen her full proof series yet, but the intuitions I've received indicate she has one.

>>12439003
Every number you can name has a meaningful definition. sqrt(2) is the diagonal of a square of side 1, that seems pretty meaningful to me. Pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter

>>12437900
>do irrational numbers exist?
No, and shit like sqrt2 should be a giant red flag that there is something fundamentally erroneous with our conception of the mathematical world.

Fortunately we have Saints among us today ready to guide Humanity down the path of Righteousness.

PRAISE SAINT WILD BURGER!

I say

PRAISE!

>>12437900
Depends on whether space-time is discrete or continuous