[ 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: 267 KB, 408x512, vonnumaleFRAUD.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11634066 No.11634066 [Reply] [Original]

ITT we name the biggest FRAUDS of scientific history.

I'll start: Von Neumann.

Supposedly the SMARTEST, FASTEST, WITTIEST man alive, he has a lengthy wikipedia article to boot. HOWEVER if you read that thing you can see he is being incorrectly credited with MANY feats that he does not deserve. I.e. look at his entry for a """"computer virus"""" supposedly this guy is the father of all computer viruses, why? BECAUSE HE SAID YOU CAN COPY PROGRAM DATA FROM ONE REGION TO ANOTHER! WTF? LITERALLY HAD BEEN AROUND WAY BEFORE HE STAMPED HIS VON NUMALE NAME ON IT

Anyway, you should go look up his interviews on youtube...dude talks like a total retard. Dude's a fruad that only popsci cunts think is smart.

So what other scientists would you guys say were fraudulent?

>> No.11634076

>>11634066
Carl Friedrich Gauss

>> No.11634081

>>11634066
Not to mention his phrenology indications he is a moron. Just look at OP’s picture

>> No.11634091

Here's his interview guys, you can see how retarded this fraud really is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLbllFHBQM4

Sentence structure shows mediocre working memory. Argument space is restricted, showing limited neuronal bandwidth. Repetition is used as a crutch to buy time to think; processing speed is mediocre.

Von Numale is nothing more than an illusionist or a con artist. He paid his buddies to say nice things about him.

>> No.11634095

>>11634066
Was he perhaps clamped??

>> No.11634101

>>11634066
I'm such a fan of the Von Numale insult, good job. Let's make it a thing.

>> No.11634108

>>11634091
Expert on intelligence here. OP is right, Von Neumann a brainlet

>> No.11634119

>>11634076
Why is that?

>> No.11634138

>>11634066
Euler was a total fraud. Found one of Newton’s journals of unpublished maths and slowly released his plagiarized work

>> No.11634160

>>11634119
it's bait, you tardoid. this whole thread is bait.

>> No.11634164

>>11634160
Big science shill

>> No.11634169

>>11634119
Not going into depth.

When Gauss was 19, he allegedly began to write on his disquisitiones arithmeticae, which later became known as the standard book for number theory. He eventually published this book three years later in 1801. Thing is that LeGendre worked on a very similar book, which was published in 1799.

Much of what Gauss has created or worked on was never published during his lifetime. Things that belong to his unpublished works are abridges of works from other people. Some authors Gauss plagiarized from include Abel and LaGrange (one couldn't defend himself against plagiarizing and the other simply didn't care).

>> No.11634173

>>11634160
speak for yourself faggot
>>11634066
Cantor's diagonal argument is probably the biggest hoax in all of mathematical history. The fact that a false proof is STILL being taught today makes Cantor's the GOAT when it comes to fake mathematics.

>> No.11634177

>>11634066
based

>> No.11634178

>>11634066
Weak bait.

Von Neumann was a serious badass. You, on the other hand, are a little bitch the size of my dick.

>> No.11634180

>>11634066
ishat newton
even stephen hawking called him out
on his book

>> No.11634189

>>11634178
>Von Neumann was a serious badass.
And why's that? Because he got his mommy to tell the world how amazing he was? Literally the only reason you faggots think he's so amazing is because he got his friends to make shit up about his prowess.

>> No.11634223

>>11634169
Interesting, thanks Anon.

>> No.11634253

>>11634101
It’s always been a thing for people that could see through the fascade

>> No.11634260

>>11634180
>Ishat
based

>> No.11634265

>>11634189
So... you just don't like Jews? Is that it?

>> No.11634266

>>11634138
So you’re saying his work was “derivative”?

>> No.11634270

>>11634266
I’m saying Newton’s manuscript was integral to his success

>> No.11634306

The von numale insult falls a bit flat if you know how to actually pronounce his name: noy-man
Which is why I now propose the new nickname of VON BASEDMAN

But seriously, fuck your schizo thread OP

>> No.11634314
File: 259 KB, 1359x740, jwst ahead of schedule.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11634314

JWST
$15 billion stolen and nothing produced

>> No.11634319

>>11634306
Shut up noy-male

>> No.11634321

>>11634306
Lmao, how could I forget the stupid filter.
That's soiman to be clear.

>> No.11634330

>>11634173
there is nothing wrong with his diagonal argument

>> No.11634331

>>11634265
Uhhh what? Didn't even know he was a Jew.

>> No.11634334

>>11634321
I really like von basedman though. it makes it clear that hes based and makes pseuds like OP seethe and dilate on anonymous basket weaving forums.

>> No.11634346

>>11634306
it still means nu-man

>> No.11634361

>>11634330
The whole thing is quackery.

>loool bro you can't count this set because every time you populate it, I can choose a sequence that you haven't already featured

>What if I just choose your sequence?

>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT IT'S NOT ALLOWED NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! IT'S NOT RIGHT!!!! THAT WOULD RUIN EVERYTHING!!!!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

>> No.11634371

>>11634361
I don't know anything about Cantor or the proof. But I have a feeling this anon is right and Cantor is a fraud

>> No.11634383

>>11634138
Fuck me, that must have been one motherfucking long journal, no?

>> No.11634400

>>11634361
Okay then, genius, enlighten us and prove that the real numbers are countable.

>> No.11634402 [DELETED] 

>>11634371
Honestly Anon, it's really dumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument#Uncountable_set

You literally enumerate your set with every single possible sequences BuT nO for "some reason" he imposes an arbitrary rule that the sequences have to be staggered where the complementary sequence is checked every alternative step and the sequences must increase in length before expiring all possible permutations. It's honestly psuedoscience rubbish, and ""smart"" people believe that shite.

>>11634400
define countable

>> No.11634408

>>11634371
Honestly Anon, it's really dumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument#Uncountable_set

You could literally enumerate your set with every single possible sequences BuT nO for "some reason" he imposes an arbitrary rule that the sequences have to be staggered where the complementary sequence is checked every alternative step and the sequences must increase in length before expiring all possible permutations. It's honestly psuedoscience rubbish, and ""smart"" people believe that shite.

>>11634400
define countable

>> No.11634410

>>11634408
Has a bijection with the natural numbers.

>> No.11634413

>>11634319
based

>> No.11634421

>>11634361
That still doesn't work. If you include the element created by the diagonalization than we can just diagonalize again to find an element not in your amended sequence.
Now you could keep amending to the sequence using transfinite recursion but then you end up with a larger cardinality and that doesn't prove the original claim (you'd be moving the goalposts to think otherwise).

>> No.11634426

>>11634410
I mean I agree the real numbers aren't bijective with a single dimension of the natural numbers, but the diagonal argument does not prove it.

>> No.11634432

>>11634426
The reason that it works is because for ANY list you choose, you can ALWAYS find a real number that isn't in that list. See >>11634421

>> No.11634433

>>11634421
No brother, given the exact argument, you can literally keep choosing the complementary function because there are a finite number of possible permutations for incomplete binary sequences. Thus bijection exists.

Now if you had two dimensions of increasing complexity, then you'd be onto something. But he didn't, because he is a retard.

>> No.11634435

>>11634408
Umm, why are you disputing Cantor if you don't even know the meaning of the terms?
The definition of "countable" in this context isn't under dispute. If you insist upon the word meaning something else to you then you aren't even disagreeing with Cantor because you aren't even speaking the same language.

>> No.11634445

>>11634432
No. The diagonal argument starts from zero complexity.

The real numbers don't start from zero complexity- any number given has no fractional bounds, thus is the branch to an infinity that is indexed by other infinities.

Since the DA starts from zero complexity, it is entirely possible to list all possible sequences.

>> No.11634454

>>11634426
What do you mean by dimension here?
You shouldn't be imposing additional structure onto the natural numbers here. They are just a set as far as any cardinality argument is concerned.
Dimension means absolutely nothing here when the only structure is of that of a set (we don't even need order relations).

>> No.11634471

>>11634445
Nobody knows what you're talking about.
Use the conventional language for this topic or define your terms.
If your won't express your ideas in the common language of set theory then it comes across as you being unable to.

>> No.11634500

>>11634435
>>11634445
>>11634454
More like Cuntor, right guys?

>> No.11634506

>>11634500
more like ur mama!
i fukd her niga.

>> No.11634542

>>11634454
This is where mathematics gets psuedo.

Let's say you want to index the real numbers with linear complexity i.e. you could advance the number of iterations randomly and not be able to calculate how many iterations have passed.
Then you would need to instances of the natural numbers -> one to sequence fractions within a unit, and another to iterate that unit to the next (two simultaneous infinities).

If you don't care about linear complexity (why should you?) You can index the real numbers with just one instance of the natural numbers. The algorithm goes like this:

Start at whole number a. Calculate base fractions from a to a+1. Move to a-1. Calculate base fractions from a -1 to a. Calculate base fractions for each base fraction from a to a+1. Calculate base fractions from a+1 to a +2. Move to a-2. Etc.

Mathematicians are dumb.

>> No.11634553

>>11634542
>Then you would need to instances
*Two

>> No.11634591

A lot of these stories are all hagiographic made up bullshit. Sure, he was smart, but these stories about mathematicians are smoke and mirrors for brainlets. I can guarantee it's the same with Gauss and Euler. This is all third degree hearsay from colleagues of colleagues of colleagues. First of all, anyone can do impressive mental with certain mental tricks and practice. And certainly people are unequal in intelligence. But these "feats of genius" of the great mathematicians in history are almost certainly made up.

There is not one instance of a photographic memory existing besides Kim Peek (a retard whose brain basically grew to have one because all his other brain matter was fucked up so everything went into memory basically). I couldn't find anything reputable on Von Neumann being able to totally memorize entire books in one look from childhood in different languages, only parts of ones he found enjoyable.

Also, you have to consider the fact that Jews like to exaggerate each other's achievements. For example, Von Neumann never invented the "Von Neumann" architecture, any time he worked on something even briefly he was awarded credit for it because Jews help each other out and exaggerate stories of each others' genius. Like the bogus 115iq figure and how they trumped up Einstein as the greatest genius ever even though he plagiarized Hilbert and Lorentz.

>oy I worked with von neumann in da ghetto before Hitlah gassed us 7 times, he could multiply 6 million digit numbahs in his head!!!

I don't doubt he was brilliant and he was definitely the best applied mathematician probably ever but you have to take these retarded stories with a grain of salt. They are about as historical as the apple falling on Newton's head. And even if they were true, the best mathematicians of the 20th century had no such talents but instead were pretty gifted people that just worked really hard, like Groethendieck.

>> No.11634600

>>11634066
Stephen Hawking
>wheelchair man has robot voice and talks about universe he must be smart

>> No.11634603

>>11634542
Complexity has nothing to do with this. It isn't CS. We don't care how long it takes to compute this shit. Nor do we care about anything involving randomness.

It's only about cardinality.

>> No.11634608

Bean counters ruin everything, math isn’t real losers

>> No.11634612

>>11634591
Almost based, but anon, how can you say "greatest applied mathematician" with a straight face?

>> No.11634619

>>11634603
Complexity as a concept is entirely valid in maths. If it bothers you that then just pretend I said cardinality.

>> No.11634642

>>11634066
just wanna say that's a good pic. who made it?

>> No.11634652

>>11634612
filthy Bourbakian

>> No.11634653

>>11634066
>VON NUMALE
kek

>> No.11634654

>>11634642
It's fresh OC. Only the best for /sci/.

>> No.11634676

>>11634619
But they're not the same thing.

>> No.11634753

>>11634654
saved

>> No.11634775

>>11634066
>Daily reminder that Shrödinger tried to convince the public that zombies existed and some people actually fell for it

>> No.11634806

>>11634066
Nikolai Tesla
>Earthquake machine
>Ball lightning
>Death ray
>Alternating Current
>Infinite wireless energy
>Was in love with a pigeon when he died

>> No.11634866

>>11634806
I always felt like Nikolai Tesla was a meme, and every conflates his eccentricities with brilliance. Guy was a total con artist. Stole majority of his ideas from the American hero Edison

>> No.11634907

>>11634066
This pic is really unsettling.

>> No.11634921

>>11634091
really smart successful people talk like complete retards. its because they are tempered by understanding they have to be understood by so many different groups of people. also so they can be more relatable and sociable.

>> No.11635111

>>11634066
>every Jew
>the end

>> No.11635167
File: 6 KB, 230x219, witt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11635167

>>11634066

>> No.11635242

>>11634433
Nah, you're just a retard trying to bait people into explaining it to your tiny brain.

>> No.11635247

>>11634169

Yeah thanks for that. Very surprising since Gauss is considered this great mathematician.

>>11634173
>>11634361
>>11634408

very true. so much of set theory is total bullshit. like the "axiom" of choice. it's so absurd it's laughable.

"well i want it to exist so it must exist"

>> No.11635519

>>11634361
Does that also work with prime numbers? If you say that proving the sequence is never complete just doesn't work, shouldn't the proof that there are infinite primes also not work? So there should be no problem with the assumption that there only is a finite number of primes.

Also, please provide your complete sequence of real numbers and I bet I will be able to prove to you that it is not complete yet.

>> No.11635535

Gauss is not overrated

https://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm

>> No.11635538

Albert Einstein. Over a century later and pseudoscientists masquerading as scientists are still scrambling over each other praising ERT.

>> No.11635600

>>11635538
This. Dude was a total fraud. He relied on the fact that communication before the internet was poor, allowing him to pass others' work off as his own

>> No.11636239

Tell me who you would consider a "great" scientist then (or a great mathematician). Galois? Dirac? Euler? Do they deserve the praise that is sing about them?

>> No.11636241

>>11634066
OP is right. Von Neumann is the king.

>> No.11636265

>>11636239
Steven Wolfram.

>> No.11636446

>>11634066
Einstein has to be there, dude was fake as hell

>> No.11636450

>>11634591
grothendieck was jewish

>> No.11636461

>>11634591
>so they can be more relatable and sociable.
>Einstein plagiarized Hilbert
back to >>>/lol/ retard

>> No.11636467

>>11634076
No. Gauss's work in differential geometry alone is enough to make him a legend.

>> No.11636490

Rosalind Franklin.
Feminists LOVE to peddle about how Watson and Crick "stole" her work, and how she should've gotten rewarded. Sure, except:
>she was a professor, a student named Ray Gosling was the one who actually took the crystallography
>her husband delivered the work to the 2 men
>her class wasn't even the first to do a DNA crystallography

Also, I know why she gets shilled while actual scientific heroines don't. Rosalind is a Jew.

>> No.11636511

>>11634066
Feels like he's tripping on acid. Or was that me and it only looks that way? I can't tell

>> No.11636513

>>11636467
>Gauss's work in differential geometry alone is enough to make him a legend.
Pretty sure it was his student who was a legend in differential geometry or as it's commonly called after his name Riemann geometry

>> No.11636669

>>11634866
Edison was so concerned for the public's health that he even demonstrated how dangerous AC was, but the people wouldn't listen to him. Honestly it's a tragedy that we still don't have DC transmitted over powerlines today

>> No.11636958

>>11636490
Don't forget the fact that she was leaving the University and instructed to leave all her data on DNA with the lab
If Watson didn't reveal his power level there would be no controversy about the DNA discovery

>> No.11637470

>>11636669
How exactly do you plan on transmitting DC more that a few hundred meters?

>> No.11637478

>>11636490

>while actual scientific heroines don't.
Actual scientific heroines, I'll start:

Marie Curie

The end

>> No.11637484

>>11637478
Dumb popsci cunt. Leave here.

>> No.11637492

>>11637484
Prove me wrong

protip: you can't

>> No.11637504

>>11637492
Emmy Noether, you retard.

>> No.11637512

>>11637478
grace hopper and heidi lamarr too.
/end

>> No.11637545
File: 23 KB, 400x287, 1472581333264.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11637545

>>11634921
> its because they are tempered by understanding they have to be understood by so many different groups of people

People who can't explain what they are thinking, don't even know it themselves.

Look at calculus. For the people inventing it, it was very complex and abstract.
Now it is relatively simple to understand because it has been broken down and studied.

Anyone can shit out a new idea that is both abstract and unique.
Understanding the idea to a degree that it can be broken down into simpler concepts is where the real understanding lies.

I see this all the time with noobs entering research. They think they are geniuses, but can't define their thoughts for shit. Part of that is the English language being trash, but even German students don't know what the fuck they are thinking. Great ideas come and go all day, just because you had a great idea doesn't mean shit if you can't define it and produce something with it. Idiot have great ideas and don't know it.

>> No.11637547

>>11637504
>Emmy Noether
Not science.

Retard.

>> No.11637550

>>11637545
English is objectively a better language than German.

>> No.11637551

>>11637547
>Physics isn't science
Brainlet.

>> No.11637556

>>11637551
Theoretical physics isn't science you first year schmuck.

>t. phd mathematician

>> No.11637574

>>11637556
>Using results from experiment to construct models is not science.
>Habing muh phd in math gibs my completely non-related statements credibility.

>> No.11637586

>>11637574
I guess math must be science too because we base number axioms from our innate neurological enumeration.

RETARD

>> No.11637597

>>11637586
>our innate neurological enumeration.
Which experiment is that?

>> No.11637601

>>11637597
One where we can see that 1+1 doesn't equal 3

>> No.11637631

>>11637601
>Doesn't know what an experiment is
>Supposedly a mathematician, but doesn't realize that the foundations of math are arbitrary.
>Trying this desperately to defend something stupid you said.
literally kys, monkey

>> No.11637645

>>11637586
>innate neurological enumeration

>> No.11637661

>>11637645
Correct
>>11637631
Most non-cretins experimented as a child and formed identities for the numbers. But it's okay because math is a science according to you LMFAO!

>> No.11637682

Thomas Edison

>> No.11637685

Nicola Tesla

>> No.11637737

>>11637550
>objectively

no, objectively it is not

>> No.11637740

Newton

>> No.11637797

>>11634091
>>11634921
>quick response
>articulate
>coherent

>hurr durr he talks like a retard

i hope you're not dumb enough to be equating his fucking accent with stupidity.

>> No.11637804

>>11634591
>grothendieck

you mean shapiro? kek. grothendieck was a jew buddy. couldn't you tell?

>"re-invented" some mathematical ideas
>takes credit for "revolutionary" thinking
>is called a genius in every article written about him ever
>no one uses anything he "made"

>> No.11637811

>>11637737
Simpler, more practical, more expressive.

English is the king of science, the king of the arts and the king of culture.

German is for dummies, compared to the powerhouse that English really is.

>> No.11638513

>>11637470
>t. ACuck

>> No.11638797

>>11638513
Based

>> No.11638860

>>11635519
>does that also work with prime numbers
yes, his argument also works with that but his argument is flawed anyway, so it doesn't matter

>> No.11638866

>>11638860
How is my argument flawed, motherfucker? That's right, you have NOTHING you dumb little cuck of a mathematician

>> No.11638872

>>11637804
>no one uses anything he made
he literally created the main object of study in modern algebraic geometry

>> No.11638882

>>11638872
>>11638872
>he literally created the main object of study in modern algebraic geometry
>can't even name the object

>> No.11638955

>>11638882
they are called schemes

>> No.11638973

Math is a Jewish Science - HA - made me learn that at school - never had any part of it - never needed it, in a management position, despite what they say of it - HA - didn't need it to make sense of cars and finance either - you ask yourself why they teach "it' - HA

...............................................................
STEVE - "I DIDTN FIGHT IN THE WAR FOR LIBERALS"
- 1970-1971 COAST GAURD
1999 CHEVY CAVYLEER
2008 DODGE AVENGER (for the 1320!)
2009 DODGE DURANGO (for the ol ball n chain)
2019 CHEVY SONIC (FOr daddys little girl)
2017 VW "GTI" (son dosen like american muscle?)

>> No.11638985

>>11638973
but boomers like that love Jews and Israel so your caricature makes zero sense

>> No.11639006

>>11634270
you missed the fucking joke

>> No.11639010

>>11638973
this, you literally dont need math even in science.
It was created by kikes to "muh predict shiet and stuff". Really you dont need that shit at all because once you do an experiment youll see what happens, also its way too abstract for any serious scientific proof. Its a pseudoscience based on human concepts.

>> No.11639014

>>11634066
Von Clampedman.

>> No.11639708

>>11639006
You missed the joke

>> No.11639735

>>11637478
Emmy Noether was pretty good.

>> No.11639757

>>11637586
We base out number axioms on a posteriori counting

>> No.11639780

>>11639757
Which clearly means mathematics MUST BE A SCIENCE!

>> No.11639793

>>11634066
cantors diagonal arugment. i dont know what else he contributed but that argument is bullshit
as far as i understand it states that, in an INFINITE list of numbers, if you change all the decimal places diagonally by 1 you end up with a number not in the list and this proves that there are more real that whole numbers (not sure if that was the exact conclusion)
but if the list of numbers is infinite it by definition already contains all the numbers, that new number you just came up with is just at some other place in the list
am i wrong? or is cantor retardet?
we then how can the

>> No.11639795

>>11639793
Yep Cantor is retarded, see: >>11634361

>> No.11639830

>>11639795
i dont understand why this shit is being used as actual proof by actual mathematicians, seemingly at least

>> No.11639876

>>11639830
Because once you get past all of the practical mathematics, m*thmos are free to start making stuff up because there's no reason for it to make sense. They can even be self contradictory since a lot of what they say has no way of being validated. This is why a lot of them are schizos that should be medicated in straitjackets.

>> No.11639892

>>11636669
Im an electrical power engineer.
Hvdc lines exist. A "DC transformer" produces a mind numbing voltage and sends it for a very fucking long distance.
The "DC transformer" is ofc nothing more than a normal transformer but with a high voltage high power rectifier.
DC lines exist because the losses associated with mid length to long ac lines dont exist in them (line capacitance and inductance) but the circuitry required is incredibly expensive.

>> No.11640051

>>11639793
Imagine a list of all even integers. It is an infinite list of numbers.
Does it contain all numbers?

Your assertion is wrong. Infinite lists can exclude infinitely many numbers.

>> No.11640193

>>11640051
if an "infinite" list doesnt include everything its not an infinite list

>> No.11640203

>>11640193
based retard

>> No.11640221

>I'm so smart the only thing I can contribute is saying how stupid everything is
Consider suicide.

>> No.11640228

>>11640203
seriously, how can an infinite list of numbers not contain all numbers i genuinely dont understand it

also this
:>>11640221

>> No.11640236

>>11640193
This shows exactly what /sci/ is all about!

>> No.11640253

>>11634066
>>11634076
>>11634081
>>11634091
>>11634101
>>11634108
ITT copers and people whose mental speed is not amazing according to Nobel Laureates

>> No.11640292

>>11640228
A list can be infinite in magnitude, yet only contain every other number.

>> No.11640323

>>11640292
thats already been stated but how?
doesnt infinity mean everything, all there is?
if a monkey types an infinite amount of random letters he will write literally everything, there is no combination of letters he will not write, so how can there be an infinite list of numbers which contains a finite amount of numbers?

>> No.11640332

>>11640323
Infinite just means an unbounded amount.

You can have a limitless number of oranges, but that doesn't mean you'll have any apples.

>> No.11640335
File: 214 KB, 792x1024, C8A6669F-5504-419F-BD14-27D011CB59CB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11640335

The most based mathematician of all time isnt listed in this thread. Evariste Galois.

BASED.

>> No.11640337

>>11639006
No you did you dense cunt lmao read it again

>> No.11640343

>>11640228
Did you ignore my example?
Consider the positive even integers: 2,4,6,8,... and so on, forever.
It's infinite right? If it's finite then what is the largest even integer?
If you accept that it's an infinite list then clearly you can see it's missing a lot of integers (not to mention rationals, reals, etc).

Infinite doesn't mean exhaustive. It doesn't mean "includes everything". It just means "never ending", or more precisely: longer than any finite list.

>> No.11640367

>>11640343
No but if its infinite it literally means without limits or bounds and so it should contain everything?

>> No.11640386

>>11640367
It does not have to contain everything. We can be happy so long as it contains both Trump and an exploding hand grenade.

>> No.11640389

>>11640386
btw I'm trans

>> No.11640423

>>11640323
If you removed a letter from the monkey's keyboards they wouldn't be able to type up Shakespeare, but they could still produce an infinite amount of stuff (given infinite time).

The fact that they can produce "everything" depends on the parameters here. It's not a given that an infinite amount of random data exhausts all possibilities.

>> No.11640444

>>11640367
No. You keep adding your own assumptions to the term. Stop doing that.

>> No.11640465

>>11640444
fucking retard, infinity literally means WITHOUT LIMIT so why are you telling me there's a limit on what can be in infinity? Literally makes no sense

>> No.11640483

>>11640465
There can be an infinite amount of unique elements and still never one specific element.
There are an infinite amount of rational numbers between 0 and 1 but still never the rational number 3/1.

>> No.11640491

>>11640465
Without limit refers to the number of items in the list. As in, the list never ends. There is no limit on the number of terms in the list.
The word has a precise meaning in mathematics and it's very simple.

Answer this question: are the natural numbers infinite?

>> No.11640529

>>11640491
>natural numbers infinite
obviously

>> No.11640543

>>11640465
Listen to >>11640483. There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1 but you will never see a 3.0 in that set.

>> No.11640547

>>11640529
How are they infinite then if they don't contain all possibilities?
You keep insisting that an infinite list must contain everything, but the naturals comprise an infinite list of numbers that excludes every negative, every fractional number, every irrational.

>> No.11640558

I almost feel bad about trolling people this gullible.

>> No.11640564

>>11640332
sure you wont have apples, but youll have every conceivable kind of orange
>>11640343
ok i see how an infinite list can leave numbers out, but the original question still isnt answered
my problem is that when you do the whole diagonal +1 thing the resulting number must already be mapped to an integer

>> No.11640575

>>11640558
I honestly can't believe so many people are falling for bait comments

>> No.11640599

>>11640564
>the resulting number must already be mapped to an integer
Why? This is an unjustified assumption. We already established an infinite list can skip over many numbers. You can't just go ahead now and assume the "diagonal number" is in there.
By definition the "diagonal number" is different from every number in the list. So it can't be in the list. That's the entire point of the proof.

>> No.11641414
File: 46 KB, 532x557, jew-nose.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11641414

It's funny how mediocre kikes like Neumann and Feynman get CONSTANTLY fucking talked about by Jews in the media as "the greatest geniuses ever". Even retard normies know about those 2. Reddit and retards that "fucking love science" won't shut up about how so and so Jew was such a genius based on dubious stories about how little bubby escaped the gas chambers 7 times while multiplying 30 digit numbers in his head.

How many know about the actual (goyim) titans of 20th century math and physics, that contributed 100 times as much? The goyim that actually revolutionized math and physics like Kolmogorov, Hilbert, Banach, Dirac, etc that didn't just prove a couple lemmas and get computer shit named after him that he never did (like Neumann)? None of them. It's just these celebrity Jews. Hmmmmm, really makes you think. If Paul Dirac or Hilbert were yids like Neumann they would never shut the fuck about them, they'd be as much of a household name as Einstein.

>> No.11641423

Jews create these giant cults around Jew scientists, to being superior to goyim.

>oy vey, John von Neumann was da smartest guy dat ever lived! he could memorize books in his head and read it backwards 50 years later!!

Does anyone really believe this? There is 0 evidence that these feats are true, besides Jews talking about it. Von Neumann was given credit for things he never did, like create the "Von Neumann architecture" which was really created by non Jews (goyim). Von Neumann did not contribute nearly as much to mathematics as they would have you think. He was a great (mostly applied) mathematician, but has some kind of celebrity status over these alleged unprovable feats of brilliance. Artin, Banach, Kolmogorov contributed 1000x as much to math as Neumann did. But who heard about them other than Math majors?

Sir Andrew Wiles? Never heard of him? He only proved the most important mathematical theorem in the past half a century. But you never hear about him! Just (((Jewish))) celeb mathematicians and physicists. That's because Wiles was a goyim (cattle). Wiles was denied the Fields Medal, while the Jew Ed Witten was given one for vague, "various contributions" for his unfalsifiable physics theories.

Paul Dirac? Only physics majors know who he is. He was the most important physicist in the past hundred years that found the equations of motion form quantum mechanics. But, he never gets any attention from the media. He wasn't one of (((them))). We hear about the Jew, Feynman and his brilliance, constantly. Feynman, the genius that revolutionized quantum mechanics! What about Einstein and his plagiarism of relativity the German whites, Hilbert, Lorentz, etc? No goy, it was all the genius of Einstein. If Dirac was a Jew, they would never shut up about how smart Diracstein was, every physics department on the planet would have a building dedicated to his memory. But he wasn't one of the tribe, so he doesn't deserve to be talked about like Feynman and Von Neumann.

>> No.11641749

>>11641423
Jews are still the priest caste. I think that's the best way the understand them. A hostile priest class from Sumer onwards.

>> No.11641798
File: 29 KB, 741x568, 1496348051017.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11641798

>>11634066
Einstein