[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 70 KB, 1024x180, lol.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10578504 No.10578504 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

It simply astounds me that Platonists still exist in 2019, a full century after set theory thoroughly BTFO any notion that mathematics is discovered and not invented.

>> No.10578507
File: 50 KB, 488x398, Religion math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>mathematics is discovered and not invented
It's both. Also that has nothing to do with Platonism.

>> No.10578510

sets exist though

>> No.10578514

>Continuum **hypothesis**
It pisses me off so fucking much that people call a very unintuitive and disgusting axiom an hypothesis.

>> No.10578519

Redpill me on how Set Theory BTFOs Platonism

>> No.10578546

what are essays/books on mathematical platonism? im a formalist but i want to see what the Platonist have to say

>> No.10578547

It's not an axiom, though? At least, it isn't an axiom of ZFC, if that's the impression you're under.

>> No.10578580

How do you guys not know about this

>> No.10578592

It's an axiom which some people choose to accept. It's not part of ZFC but it's an axiom nonetheless, it's not an hypothesis in any sense other than historical.

>> No.10578803

It is a sentence in the language of set theory, calling it an axiom is a little misleading. Almost no one just says "assume CH". They are either working in a model, like L, where it is true or they're working with something with, like PFA, where it is false.

>> No.10578818

Platonism has been rescued by Curry Howard correspondence. A proof of X->Y is simply a concrete computer program between types X and Y.
Philosophytards eternally BTFOed

>> No.10578858

>give me a python program for every real number
LOL this retard doesn't know that there are incomputable real numbers.

>decimal expansions of real numbers are not unique
Which Cantor knew, which is why he removed the countably infinite subset of doubles in order to create the bijection between the binary strings and the reals! Take away this guy's PhD!

>> No.10578872

This guy’s whole argument assumes all real numbers are computable lmao

>> No.10579870

Look at the date it was posted.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.