[ 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: 137 KB, 692x441, Screenshot_2016-11-08_01-31-01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8462842 No.8462842 [Reply] [Original]

PIC RELATED, IT'S DONE, OVER, KAPUTT!

WHAT A GENIUS OF THE TIMES, THIS IS HISTORY RIGHT HERE!

>> No.8462850

absolutely savage.

>> No.8462861
File: 68 KB, 643x546, IMG_0079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8462861

>>8462842
BASED
A
S
E
D

>> No.8462872

you can't write 2z tho

>> No.8462876

>>8462842
But there are more than one way to write an even number as a sum of two primes most of the time. Take 144 for example:
139 + 5 = 144
137 + 7 = 144
131 + 13 = 144
127 + 17 = 144
113 + 31 = 144
107 + 37 = 144
103 + 41 = 144
101 + 43 = 144
97 + 47 = 144
83 + 61 = 144
73 + 71 = 144

>> No.8462912

>>8462842
Given that the set of integers is infinite, and that each prime is somewhat 'unique', can it be shown to be true without checking that all the sums of all pairs of primes gives us the set of all even numbers (starting at eight and above or?)..?

>> No.8462917

>>8462912
>starting at eight
3 + 3 = 6

>> No.8462984

>>8462842
this guy is a fucking meme
>goldbach conjecture is false because we don't have enough space in the universe to write it
>same reasoning for twin prime conjecture etc.
that's not a fucking proof, holy shit this makes me want to kill myself

>> No.8463006

>>8462917
2+2=4
2 is prime
3+3 is still good tho

>> No.8463037

>>8462984
Wouldn't it..... make more sense to kill him?

>> No.8463051

>>8463037
But that's illegal, I wouldn't want to break the law.

>> No.8463058

>>8463051
cuck

>> No.8463075

>>8463051
>But that's illegal
so is killing yourself. In most countries anyways.

>> No.8464407

>>8463075
Only if they catch you.

>> No.8464494

>>8462912
>Given that the set of integers is infinite
nope, its capped at around 2^200

>> No.8465221
File: 603 KB, 984x1124, intuitive.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8465221

>>8462842
the only thing he proved is that he is a certified crank at this point.
I was still a bit in doubt about this guy. I mean constructivism sounds kind of cool and all. but he seems too far gone

>> No.8465556

>>8462876
>11 ways

I don't know why, but it makes me mad there aren't 12.

>> No.8465560

>>8465556

>the number of ways an even number can be represented as the sum of prime numbers is itself a prime number

Brb, PhD defense

>> No.8465564

>>8462842
I am a Wild fan but I don't feel too strong about this one. However, I like one thing. Finally Wild has put theorems where his mouth is. In the past he has only proved already proven theorems using his new famework so we couldn't really attack him. We already knew the truth of his result. But now, for the first time, he has gone out and resolved a problem that was yet unsolved in naive mathematics.

Is Wild right or wrong? We will now know. If someone is able to prove the goldbach conjecture true, going against Wild, then his theory is 0/10 crap or at least needs refining.

This is good for all of you, Wild haters. Dislike him? Just prove the Goldbach Conjecture to be true using your shitty infinite sets and then we will all have to shut up.

>inb4 new ZFC axiom: Goldbach conjecture is true

Like you solve all your problems, faggots.

>> No.8465601

>>8465564
You cant prove this just like you cant prove 0a = 0. So we must make this an axiom, dipshit.

>> No.8465618

>>8462984
It's a valid proof, just using a non-standard (and completely retarded) set of axioms. Wildberger basically takes the idea that there is no integer greater than 10^200 as an axiom, then uses that to show there are not an infinite number of primes, and hence not an infinite number of even numbers that can be expressed as the sum of two primes. His axioms are stupid and his proof is trivial, but it's logically coherent.

>> No.8465688

do you have to be autistic to care about math shit

>> No.8467370

>>8465560
>>the number of ways an even number can be represented as the sum of prime numbers is itself a prime number
https://oeis.org/A045917
fucking destroyed kid
3+7
5+5

>> No.8467373

>>8465618

thanks for the TLDR .... been slowly getting through his videos

>> No.8467375

>>8465618

where does the 10^200 integer limit come from ?

>> No.8467377

>>8467370
>new axiom: every number in that set is a prime number
BTFO
T
F
O

>> No.8467402

>>8467375
It's a rough approximation of the number of Planck cubes in the (visible?) universe. Since Wildberger thinks that's the upper limit on the number of things that can possibly be in the universe, he believes we can't say anything meaningful about numbers bigger than that.

>> No.8467462

>>8467402
Don't we have to consider the number of configurations of each of those cubes? Assuming we want to discuss probabilities of specific configurations...

>> No.8467476

>>8467462
On the chance that this question gets answered after I go to sleep.

Don't we have to consider the number of configurations of each of those cubes? Assuming we want to discuss probabilities of specific configurations.
Then don't we have to consider the number of maps between states? Assuming we want to discuss the relationships between cube configurations.
Then don't we have to consider the power set of the number of states? Assuming we want to talk about inverses of functional relationships between states in the general case.
Then don't we have to consider the number of maps between maps? Assuming we want to discuss the relationships between relationships between configurations in the general case.

And so on.

>> No.8467504

>>8467476
Not in his model. He only considers a number to exist if it can be represented by that number of things.
So we can show 2 exists by writing 2 = ||. 3 exists because we can write 3 = |||.
So, by that reasoning, the absolute biggest number is the number represented by all of the Planck cubes in the universe (which obviously assumes space is discrete, which I guess doesn't make his model any more retarded than it already is).
You can watch his videos explaining this on his youtube channel, njwildberger.

>> No.8467517

>>8462842

wait, is he using Z, used to represent the set of all real numbers, as a fucking variable?

>> No.8467522

>>8467517
what are you talking about?
[math] \mathbb{R} [/math] is the symbol for the set of real numbers

>> No.8467532

>>8467522

I thought he meant how R^3 = Z then tried to use it as a variable

what is he talking about then? some made up number z?

>> No.8467552

>>8462842
Everybody in this thread is now much dumber. ZZ is an extension to NN and NN is defined by the Peano Axiom. This trolls proof is shit. He is the flat earther of mathematicians.

>> No.8467563

>>8467552
what are you even trying to say?
peano axioms are weak shit for that matter, freshman tier.

>> No.8467569

>>8467563
BS. He broke the simplest rule for counting numbers. His proof is based on an non existing border.

>> No.8467595

>>8467569
again, what are you even trying to say? what are we counting here? the "proof" is retarded because the claim "there's no prime bigger than z" is silly as fuck, and nothing else.

>> No.8467604

This guy is such a retard

Why do you shill this meme?

>> No.8467614

>>8462842
omg! I just learned he is a math prof. He must have a accident with severe brain injuries. Is it enough to count cows to five to become a math prof in australia? Or are there some magic rules for prime number frequencies down under flat earth.

>> No.8467657

>>8467370
2 is prime

>> No.8467756
File: 10 KB, 198x254, Download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8467756

A) Magic is called Betrands postulate.

B) Disprove of a conjecture by a missing proof is BS.

It is like:

> 100 german scientist against Albert Einstein.

I hate it if science is replaced by propaganda. Australia is lost.

>> No.8467878

>>8467370
3+3+3+1

>> No.8467908

>>8467532
As far as I understand it he assumes there is a finite number of integers with z being the largest

>> No.8468035

Ridiculous...

False proof and awful exemples.

>> No.8468036

>>8462842
ITT angry brainlets who can't into finitism

>> No.8468038

>>8467908
z is 10 triangle 10 + 23

Wild has over analyzed the properties of this specific number over his last 10 videos or something.

>> No.8468145

>>8462872
ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

>> No.8468459

>>8462872
But you just wrote it famalam

>> No.8468472

>>8465564
We already know there are infinitely many naturals and primes, so there's no way he can be right

>> No.8468476

>>8467375
He defines numbers as lines on whiteboard, and because there are finitely many whiteboards in the observable universe there are finitely many naturals, and their number is estimated to 10^200

>> No.8469288

>>8468476
So something as easy to write as 10^300 doesn't count, then?

>> No.8469353

I really think his stuff is more foundational digital physics, and less math.

>> No.8469391

>>8469288
>So something as easy to write as 10^300 doesn't count, then?

Actually no and Wild has a very good reason for why.

You and I think that a number by any other name is just as rigorous, right? Well, Papa Wild doesn't think about it. Papa Wild thinks of natural numbers in 3 different ways

Primitive natural numbers: his msets where, for example, [I I I] represents the number 3.

Hindu arabic numerals: Where you take the idea of primitive numbers and assign symbols to a number of them and then construct numbers using these symbols.

These allow us to create more numbers. For example, the biggest hindu arabic numeral is 10^10^200, not 10^200.

This is good for theoretically thinking about dark numbers (there are no dark primitive naturals) and to more orderly think about normal numbers (writing 10 is way better than writing [IIIIIIIIII])

Then there is Exp, the set of expressions. In this set lie objects like 5+5 which can be shown to be equivalent, but not really the same, as 10.

Exp is a really weird set, and something like 10^300 belongs to this set. One of the main differents between Nat and Exp is as such:

If I gave you two primitive naturals then it would be TRIVIAL to tell which one is bigger. The one that is longer, obviously. But what if I gave you two arbitrary members of Exp? There are cases where you would have no idea. For example

What is bigger

10^30^2^300 or 10^32^3^299

Maybe if you know a couple of tricks you could, but if I gave you an even bigger tower of exponentials. At one point there would be no way to know because what if your expression translates to a dark number,

10^300 is a dark number so if I ask you to prove me that 10^301 is larger than 10^300 by giving me the mset that this expression represents, you could not do it. There is not enough space in the universe to represent a dark number such as 10^300 or 10^301.

That is why simply writing "10^300" doesn't count. Expressions behave very differently from naturals.

>> No.8469424

>>8462912
this is equivalent to the goldbach conjecture you idiot

>> No.8469427

>>8469391
There are lots of m-sets you couldn't give me. You couldn't even draw me the m-set for 4 trillion; you'd die before you had enough time to finish drawing lines.

"Space in the universe" is a completely arbitrary constraint; when you get to the point where you're saying "theoretically it COULD be written down, if you had access to a ridiculously tiny marker and could write 1000 lines a second and had a trillion years and access to all the space in the universe" why not just add one more theoretical quantifier that you won't run out of space

>> No.8469435

>>8469427
>There are lots of m-sets you couldn't give me. You couldn't even draw me the m-set for 4 trillion; you'd die before you had enough time to finish drawing lines.

But I theoretically could give it to you, because 4 trillion is not a dark number. There is enough space in the universe for me to do it.

>"Space in the universe" is a completely arbitrary constraint; when you get to the point where you're saying "theoretically it COULD be written down, if you had access to a ridiculously tiny marker and could write 1000 lines a second and had a trillion years and access to all the space in the universe" why not just add one more theoretical quantifier that you won't run out of space

Because saying there is a limit is more sensible than pretending there isn't.

>> No.8469440

Does Wildberger literally believe that Planck cubes are the smallest volumes possible in the universe? Is that what he bases his finitism on?

>> No.8469441

>>8469435
>Because saying there is a limit is more sensible than pretending there isn't.
Why?

>> No.8469442

>>8469435
But it's sensible to assume that not being able to write it down before the death of the sun _isn't_ a limit?

>> No.8469447

>>8469440
It is a part of his theory but it is not fundamental. When he talks about numbers he either talks about small, normal, numbers or really big numbers that go way beyond 10^200 to show why they are not nice.

He never ever tries to talk about numbers really close to that 10^200 boundary because even 10^200 is arbitrary. If tomorrow we had better measurements about what is the smallest unit of space then we would recalculate the biggest numbers based on that and nothing else about his theory would change.

>>8469441
Because then you get batshit crazy statements like "the square root of 2 exists" to be true in your framework.

>>8469442
It is a limit but it is way different from being literally unable to write it down, regardless of how much you may try.

Also, remember that non-dark numbers have really nice properties. Most important is that low complexity non-dark numbers are very easy to compute on. One trillion (1,000,000,000,000) may look big but to a computer it is nothing.

We can very easily do mathematics with one trillion, even if writing down its mset would be long, it is enough for mathematicians to prove that it is not dark to be able to do useful calculations with it.

>> No.8469453

>>8469447
>the square root of 2 exists
Why is that crazy?

If I draw two lines of unit length, each connected to the other at one end at a right angle, what is the distance between the other two ends?

>> No.8469455

>>8469447
>It is a limit but it is way different from being literally unable to write it down, regardless of how much you may try.
lmao

because if you try hard enough you can fill up every planck cube in the universe with a tiny little line

His choice of ceiling is as arbitrary as any other and the only reason he chose that one is that it's the least bullshit sounding he could find.

>> No.8469457

>>8469453
Please just watch Wild trig to understand this. I will just say that the only thing the pythagoras theorem says is that

c^2 = a^2 + b^2

Any other conclusion you want to get from this, like maybe taking the "square root" of both sides is unsubstantiated, unrigorous garbage that comes from a mindset that takes arithmetic for granted.

>> No.8469460

>>8469457
Saying that something equals c^2 implies that c has to at least exist. You can't square something that has no meaning.

>> No.8469467

>>8469460
>Saying that something equals c^2 implies that c has to at least exist.

That is a very nice claim... prove it.

You think it does because you have been taught to think of the fundamental metric as length... but it isn't. The fundamental metric is area.

c^2 on its own represents something geometric, a square, and this is well founded.

And sure, c would be technically the length of this square but this doesn't mean that c has to be a traditional number. Papa Wild argues for a complete algebraic treatment of irrationals that occur naturally in geometry. Where we simply say that root 2 is the number that satisfies the equation x^2 = 2 without asking anything more about it because if we keep pushing for the "truth" then we start thinking about infinite decimals and there is no such thing as infinite.

But also, as Papa Wild does, we should avoid these algebraic constants as much as we can. Even if rigorously defined as algebaic identities, they are still a very weak foundation. That is why he thinks of a theory of spreads (ratios of areas) instead of angles (ratios of lenghts) and area as the fundamental metric instead of length. This way the weird constants would just arise in the algebraic context, where it makes much sense to use them as our crutches to find results.

>> No.8469476

>>8469467
>occur naturally in geometry
Why is nature a concern when constructing abstract number systems?

>> No.8469477

>>8469467
>That is a very nice claim... prove it.
>Where we simply say that root 2 is the number that satisfies the equation x^2 = 2
well you literally just told me root 2 exists so it doesn't seem that I have to.

>> No.8469486

>>8469477
>well you literally just told me root 2 exists so it doesn't seem that I have to.

The algebraic notion presented here by Papa Wild is nowhere as flawed as the analytical notion of irrationals, typically represented by infinite decimals, or cauchy sequences (which are infinite sets).

>> No.8469488

>>8469486
Why are they flawed? Because of infinities?

How do you know infinities don't exist? (Reminder: we have no reason to believe that space is not infinitely divisible)

>> No.8469490

>>8469486
Also what is the angle between two perpendicular lines, in radians?

>> No.8469491

>>8469486
but I never made any claim anywhere about infinite decimals. I simply said irrationals exist after you claimed that root 2 existing was silly; I never said anything about it meaning you can represent them as infinite sets.

you're regurgitating nonsensical rhetoric that you don't even understand so you keep going back to irrelevant points

probably trolling but it's funny so it's fine

>> No.8469493

>>8469490
radians are defined by the illogical pseudo-mathematical notion of a "circle"

>> No.8469516

>>8469467
There's a much bigger problem here.

Even if sqrt(2) exists, that doesn't mean that all reals exist. In order to prove the existence of a real you must demonstrate it and given that our language only allows a countable number of definitions then it is provably impossible to demonstrate each real number. At best we only have a countable subset which happens to be a superset of the algebraic numbers but a proper subset of the reals.

>> No.8469521

>>8469453
no you do not know that the number you get is sqrt2, because a number is just an assignment to a length. there is a length, since you can lay down your ruler on the line, but you do not know if it is possible to give the length the number sqrt2.
you think that it is possible only because you assigned previously natural numbers to lengths

Same thing for assigning a volume, a mass to anything.

>> No.8469681

>>8469435
>I can give you m set of 4 trillion because it's not a dark number, and it's not a dark number because I can give you it's m set
Well that's stupid as hell mate.
Also, his reasoning on upper bound of naturals is retarded as hell, he says you can't have number greater than 10^200 because there are no more plank cubes, so it's impossible to construct such number, but he fails to notice it's practically impossible to construct number 10^200, 10^200-1, 10^150. They are as impossible to construct as 10^200 or bigger numbers and yet wildburger has no problem with calling them naturals and admitting they exist

>> No.8469687

>>8469447
Isn't number system basing on arbitrarily bounds useless? If today 10^200 is the biggest number but tomorrow when more whiteboards are discovered 10^202 becomes new bigger number, why even bother with such shit structure?

>> No.8469692

>>8469455
If we say one plank cube represents number 10^200 instead of one (because both assumptions are both arbitrary) then the biggest number possible is (10^200)^(10^200)

>> No.8469694

>>8469467
If c*c exist then would it have any sense to say c*c exists while c doesn't?

>> No.8469696

>>8464494
Then how do you explain a book that has all the numbers of the largest mersenne prime

>> No.8469697

>>8469687
This is a grod post. +1

>> No.8469698

>>8469457
Please watch that one wildburger's video when he was solving problem using rational geometry and quadrances, which are supposed to get us rid of irrationals, and the answer he got involved sqrt of 6

>> No.8469700

>>8469476
Cult of abstraction is garbage

>> No.8469704

>>8469516
We don't have to prove existence of each and every real, same as wildburger never proved the existence of all naturals from 1 up to 10^200.

>> No.8469724

>>8462842
Is this guy retarded? I didnt understand a word he says. He is supposed to be intelligent, why cant he explain his theory to me? IS he RETARDED?

>> No.8469731

>>8462842
I actually like the "proof".
The mathematics he practices is quite different to what is standard today and while what he is doing might not do any good it at least gives a new perspective.

The "proof" is a consequence of his ultrafinitism and while the complete point of the problem was missed it also demonstrates the relation between mathematics and the real world.

For a pure mathematician his theories are probably a waste of time because actively limiting oneself is a bad idea.
But for CS or Engineering some of his stuff might even be useful and a lot easier to comprehend for students.

I could even imagine that his "rational geometry" might have useful applications in engineering where solving a trigonometric problem requires calculating trigonometric function to a high degree of accuracy.

>> No.8469734

>>8469724
I am completely stupid and I understand him so I imagine it is your fault.

>> No.8469786

>>8469493
How is , "the set of points equidistant from a given centre point" illogical

>> No.8469840

>>8469786
How are "object of no size" and "finite, non zero object made of infinitely many objects of zero size" logical?

>> No.8469852

>>8469840
I'm not talking about a physical object, I'm talking about locations in a space

>> No.8470066

>>8467370
>>8465560
You are retarded 2 is a prime number.

>> No.8470075

>>8467878
1 ain't prime

>> No.8470126

Another cringe thread /b/?

>> No.8470152

So how can he be sure that the number 1 trillion exists, seeing as noone has ever put that many strokes on a board?

>> No.8470172

>>8469852
Locations of what? Of sizeless, (that is nonexistent) objects?