[ 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

File: 23 KB, 386x200, lecture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

9397405

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:36:50 2017 No.9397405 [DELETED]

[DELETED]

[Reply] [Original]

>BE ME ON UNIVERSITY LECTURE
>PROFESSOR IS ``PROVING'' A THEOREM
>I REALIZE WHAT HE IS TELLING US IS STRAIGHT UP BULLSHIT
>I IMMEDIATLY STAND UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LECTURE
>TELL HIM THAT WHAT HE MEANS BY PROOF IS ONLY VALID IF WE TAKE THE AXIOM OF INFINITY FOR GRANTED
>THE REST OF THE CLASS TURNS SILENT THE MOMENT I SPOKE
>PROFESSOR IS SPEECHLESS
>HE SAYS THERE IS NO REASON TO NOT ACCEPT THE EXISTENCE OF INFINITE SETS
>I YELL AT HIM THAT PUTTING AN ADJECTIVE IN FRONT OF A NOUN DOES NOT IN ITSELF MAKE A MATHEMATICAL CONCEPT. CANTOR WHO TURNED MATHEMATICS INTO A BAD JOKE DECLARED THAT AN INFINITE SET IS A SET WHICH IS NOT FINITE. ITS LIKE DECLARING THAT AN ALL-SEING LEPRECHAUN IS A LEPRECHAUN WHICH CAN SEE EVERYTHING. THESE GRAMMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS DO NOT CREATE CONCEPTS, EXCEPTS PERHAPS IN A LITERARY OR POETIC SENSE.
>PROFESSOR IS VISIBLY NERVOUS AND STARTS SHAKING
>HE HAS NO ARGUMENTS AND TELLS ME TO LEAVE THE LECTURE HALL FOR DISTURBING THE CLASS
>THE REST OF THE CLASS STANDS UP WITH ME AND SAYS THAT IF IM EXPELLED FROM THE LECTURE THEY WILL LEAVE TOO
>PROFESSOR STARTS CRYING AND DECIDES TO LEAVE THE LECTURE HALL IN TEARS AND ASHAMED
>EVERYONE STARTS CLAPPING FOR ME AND CHANTING MY NAME

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:37:38 2017 No.9397407 >>9397405 FUCK YEAH CAPS LOCK LOOK AT ME IM FUCKING COOOOOOL FUCK YEAHHHH

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:38:20 2017 No.9397413 >>9397405 Keep up the fight. Math can still be saved.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:38:41 2017 No.9397415 WILD BERG ER WILD BERG ER WILD BERG ER WILD BERG ER

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:39:41 2017 No.9397419 >>9397405 kys you are self

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:40:37 2017 No.9397421 File: 2.79 MB, 853x480, wildberger.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >OP envisions himself as this

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:43:04 2017 No.9397425 >>9397421 god that was so cringy

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:43:55 2017 No.9397427 >>9397405 What are your preferred axioms?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:44:29 2017 No.9397429 >>9397421 There's an infinite set of distances between me and you

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:57:22 2017 No.9397449 >>9397405 And then, as the clapping stops, a timid voice asks: "How many natural numbers are there?"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:59:13 2017 No.9397453 >>9397421 Sauce?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:59:25 2017 No.9397454 File: 137 KB, 409x431, 1511889243997.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I'll take "shit that never happened" for 500, josh

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 18:40:46 2017 No.9397526 >>9397405 more like >I IMMEDIATLY STAND UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LECTURE >TELL HIM THAT WHAT HE MEANS BY PROOF IS ONLY VALID IF WE TAKE THE AXIOM OF INFINITY FOR GRANTED >THE REST OF THE CLASS STARTS LAUGHING THE MOMENT I SPOKE

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 18:47:28 2017 No.9397541 >>9397449 As many as the number of physical particles that exists in the universe of course. It’s something that cannot be deduced from theory alone

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 18:57:37 2017 No.9397562 File: 14 KB, 478x523, d04.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9397541 >How many natural numbers are there? >As many as the number of physical particles that exists in the universe of course.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 18:59:01 2017 No.9397563 >>9397541 protip: Mathematics ≠ physics

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 18:59:08 2017 No.9397565 >>9397541 Suddenly you discover a new particle in the universe, now all of your previous mathematics is false and you have to start from scratch again while real mathematics still holds regardless of new discoveries.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:00:18 2017 No.9397567 File: 77 KB, 645x729, 80c.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9397541 HELP! The number of natural numbers keeps changing!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:01:50 2017 No.9397571 Since math is invented and not discovered, there is no problem with making up your own math. Just like they do with """"""imaginary"""""" numbers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:19:10 2017 No.9397604 what will break if we assume that infinities exist? other than your feels ofc

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:29:03 2017 No.9397617 >>9397453 https://myanimelist.net/anime/14741/Chuunibyou_demo_Koi_ga_Shitai

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:30:05 2017 No.9397620 >>9397541 >It’s something that cannot be deduced from theory alone Math is entirely theory you fucking clown

>>

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:30:09 2017 No.9397621

>>9397449
>How many natural numbers are there?

The Earth's radius is 3,956.549 miles.

That means the volume between the Earth and the Firmament is 4.709,547,7 x 109 ft3.

That is 3.1587489 x 1099 Planck volumes!

But we may get a more rigorous estimate by adding the time dimension to it.

Over the total 6,000 years of lifetime of the universe, there's been 3.5097447 x 1054 Planck times!

That gives us a total of 11.086,402 x 10153 as an upper bound of things that can ever exist at any instant t, at least until now since the beginning.

There can be no integer greater than 11.086,402 x 10153, that would contradict physics.

As time passes, that number will of course increase, but for now, Occam's razor tells us not to consider these integers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:37:16 2017 No.9397641 >>9397621 lmao

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:46:06 2017 No.9397657 Reminds me of this... http://abstrusegoose.com/511

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:46:32 2017 No.9397659 >>9397405 >AND THE STUDENT'S NAME WAS ALBERT EINSTEIN

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:50:42 2017 No.9397672 >>9397405 Welcome back to the Nineteenth Century, Cadet Capslock.

>>

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:54:04 2017 No.9397679

>>9397621
I know it's a jokepost but this argumentation will be useful for the these flat earth-esque finitecucks anyways:
>come up with theory that requires a property to be true for all natural numbers
>luckily, it is true for every number up until 11.086,402 x 10153
>use theory everywhere
>suddenly, there are more natural numbers OUT OF NOWHERE
>there is a natural number for which the property doesn't hold anymore now
>everything was wrong and you have to start again
>but that's okay because it wasn't real mathematics so you try again but fail but that's okay because it wasn't real mathematics so you try again but fail but that's okay because it wasn't real mathematics so you try

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:12:05 2017 No.9397708 File: 400 KB, 500x500, 1474518135779.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9397405 Does Zero exist?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:16:34 2017 No.9397717 >>9397427 Axiom of Choice and, in all ways except physical, a wolf.

>>

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:32:18 2017 No.9397738

>>9397621
(I'm assuming "10153" is supposed to be "1e153")
That's trivial whenever you compute the number of possible arrangements of a group of items.
And even THAT is infinitesimal compared with Skewe's Number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skewes%27s_number

It's been VASTLY reduced since it was first calculated and we now know that "there exists a number x violating π(x) < li(x) below e 727.951346801 < 1.3971821 × 10^316
It could be reduced even further, assuming the Riemann hypothesis."

There's a particularly egregious thread running elsewhere on /sci/ claiming "mathematicians are no longer needed since all problems can be solved by computer."
Obviously started by a brainlet who knows zilch about what mathematicians do.

>>	sage goes in all fields Wed Dec 27 20:38:37 2017 No.9397743 >>9397405 nice fanfic is this /sci/'s wet fantasy? >>9397679 number theory is not real mathematics

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:46:41 2017 No.9397754 File: 57 KB, 750x600, Cruise_01723f_249877.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]