/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11534506]

Daily reminder that NO ONE has proven that no mathematical contradiction/paradox exists.

[Anonymous No.11534719]

Are you retarded? That's literally what Godel's incompleteness theorem is about. No set of axioms can proof all theorems. No set of axioms can be consistent

[Anonymous No.11534738]

>>11534719
wrong

[Anonymous No.11534743]

>>11534738
wrong

[Anonymous No.11534759]

>>11534743
Okay so are you trying to agree with the OP while calling me retarded?

[Anonymous No.11534767]

>>11534719
>>11534743
Can you read? It clearly states it doesn't apply to _every_ system of axioms.

[Anonymous No.11534771]

>>11534759

wrong

[Anonymous No.11534776]

>>11534767
BASED

[Anonymous No.11534787]

>>11534506
How could this possibly be true?

The act of measuring is a relay chain, so even if one tried to count for the entire of everything they still would not be able to count themselves because you can't hand the relay back to yourself.

Only by passing the process of measuring on can the previous measurer be included in a set.

Do it enough times and you have a language/axiom/schema, which are just other ways of saying 'ways to escape the curse of dimensionality' or self-referentialism THE GAME.

>Helping OP is key to the game of patience.

[Anonymous No.11534788]

>>11534787
Are you trying to say that it is impossible to prove that no contradiction/paradox exists? If so, you are not disagreeing with the OP post, my friend.

[Anonymous No.11534790]

>>11534743
>>11534719
I don't get it, do I really have to teach humans the divine art of why taking turns is universally preferential OR that things occur in cycles (that can be shrunk/expanded BUT NOT DESTROYED) OR that eventually you outgrow your parents?

>>11534788
No, if it was impossible then it would just be like a divine update from the universe blessing you in this moment and empowering you to solve all of your communities immediate problems.

[Anonymous No.11534795]

>>11534790
anon, you don't have to go FULL woke, you know that right?

[Anonymous No.11534799]

>>11534795
Problem is only resolved when enough other humans declare/celebrate it as so and spread said awareness to others.

Until then isn't it the purview of the solution provider to keep solving for x?

[Anonymous No.11534800]

>>11534506
>Daily reminder that NO ONE has proven that no mathematical contradiction/paradox exists.
Yes and it's provably impossible to prove this for a reasonably complex theory.

[Anonymous No.11534801]

>>11534799
Take your meds.

[Anonymous No.11534805]

>>11534800
Anything that needs successor functions or chaining of elements/discrete parts is defined as complex.

>>11534801
*Drinks a glass of water*
Thanks. I needed that.

[Anonymous No.11534806]

>>11534805
>Anything that needs successor functions or chaining of elements/discrete parts is defined as complex.
Basically yes.

[Anonymous No.11534814]

>>11534806
1 + 1 = 2 is complex now?

Do people just not understand tapering or truncation?

[Anonymous No.11534817]

>>11534814
>1 + 1 = 2 is complex now?
Yes, ask any number theorist about how complex the natural numbers are...

[Anonymous No.11534826]

>>11534817
Who would waste their time on those fucking exclusion wizards? Do they think that if they don't devote their lives to wondering why numbers go on forever that they won't be there for others to use them or something?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rae7_O_6EtU

How do I even interpret this fucking image I just found? What is the value in separating subjective value representation this way?

[Anonymous No.11534832]

>>11534826
>How do I even interpret this fucking image I just found?
Read a book with an introduction to elementary set theory.

>Do they think that if they don't devote their lives to wondering why numbers go on forever that they won't be there for others to use them or something?
Nobody wonders why the numbers go on forever, except shizos.

[Anonymous No.11534841]

>>11534832
Okay, lemme translate my own thoughts into retarded 4chan-ese for a second.

My question is more exactly HOW much mathematics or separation into parts is actually required for their to be an exhaustive functional translation space between unique problem spaces?

There are functions, problem spaces, and input languages.

[Anonymous No.11534844]

>>11534841
>My question is more exactly HOW much mathematics or separation into parts is actually required for their to be an exhaustive functional translation space between unique problem spaces?
That isn't a meaningful statement. It's Shizo rambling.

>There are functions, problem spaces, and input languages.
Neither "problem spaces" or "input languages" are well defined and I doubt you know what a function is.

[Anonymous No.11534847]

>>11534844
Well the problem space currently is the language that you're using simply dumps me in a problem space without actually offering any translation or rebuttal function.

If you are willing to dump observations you've made about others into some sort of intellectual time-out bin then how do you know if you're not the problem, teacher of this moment?

[Anonymous No.11534850]

>>11534847
Unironically go see a mental health professional.

[Anonymous No.11534857]

>>11534814
Prove that I cannot discover an equation that definitively contradicts 1+1=2

[Anonymous No.11534861]

>>11534850

[Anonymous No.11534883]

>>11534850
Since when was a lack of YOUR ability to interpret my words/thoughts a mental health concern for other people, dipshit?

>>11534857
Pretty sure proving void is void.

>>11534861
Wouldn't a language teacher for both be more prudent?

[Anonymous No.11534889]

>>11534883
>lack of YOUR ability to interpret my words
There is no such lack. I made my interpretation clear, you need to take your meds.

[Anonymous No.11534902]

>>11534889
Does talking like that actually work for you offline? I'm kind of curious because if it does then I think I'm just going to start using that on everyone.

Pretty sure if I do that enough I'd end up being known as the rapist of everyone's concern (the abstract inspection and awareness of another person's mental state).

[Anonymous No.11534911]

>>11534902
>Does talking like that actually work for you offline?
I do not talk to the mentally ill offline.

[Anonymous No.11534916]

>>11534911
And yet can perfectly identify them regardless of being offline or online.... Are you psychic or otherwise receive messages that provide you with this perfect information beyond what you would call your intuition?

[Anonymous No.11535051]

>>11534506
In paraconsistent logical systems some contradictions are perfectly fine and called "true contradictions".