> 0! = 1 This is actually a bigger meme than 0.9999... = 1

File: 11 KB, 645x773, PLW.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:03:04 2020 No.12501761 [Reply] [Original]

> 0! = 1
This is actually a bigger meme than 0.9999... = 1

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:04:05 2020 No.12501764 >>12501761 numbers aren't real anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:11:08 2020 No.12501776 >>12501761 4! = 5! / 5 3! = 4! / 4 2! = 3! / 3 1! = 2! / 2 0! = 1! / 1

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:12:32 2020 No.12501777 File: 387 KB, 1028x1600, Platon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12501764 Cringe. 2 and 2 don't make 5 just because I say so. Numbers are real anon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:12:58 2020 No.12501779 >>12501761 0.999... =\= 1 We have different symbols for a reason, and only mathematicians would fail to understand the difference between an object and something infinitely close to that object which is not that object

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:15:02 2020 No.12501785 >>12501779 1/inf=0

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:19:48 2020 No.12501798 >>12501785 No 1/inf = 0.0000.........1...

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:22:12 2020 No.12501807 >>12501798 0.1=10^-1 0.01=10^-2 0.001=10^-3 : 0.0...1=10^-inf=0

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:24:43 2020 No.12501809
File: 359 KB, 800x450, Pathetic.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12501776
This is pure cope.
You're just meming patterns into meaning.
The definition of a factorial should be enough to tell you that 0! should not be defined, just like (-1)!.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:25:47 2020 No.12501812 >>12501779 >>12501798 Based

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:26:46 2020 No.12501813 >>12501807 >implying something cannot be infinitely small ISHYGDDT

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:28:39 2020 No.12501817 >>12501813 0 is 'infinitely smal'

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:33:36 2020 No.12501829 >>12501817 0 is nothing. It serves no purpose other than to be representative of nothing. Infinitely small is infinitely small.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:50:39 2020 No.12501861 >>12501829 1/inf=0 if it's >0, then you are bounding inf inf, by definition, is unbounded

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:51:46 2020 No.12501863 >>12501829 >0 is nothing and infinity is everything

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:51:58 2020 No.12501864 File: 122 KB, 900x900, WildBurger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12501817 > Infinitely small equals nothing > Galileo's paradox > Some infinities are bigger than others > Infinity is not a number Infinity was a mistake.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:53:03 2020 No.12501865

>>12501861
0.999... is not bound. Indeed, the 9's can go on forever. But they will never magically become 1. It is only your inability to comprehend an actual infinite sequence which draws you to simplify it to 1. But the objects are not the same.
Were there to be no binding rules whatsoever applied to inf, then indeed, it could be 1, or 2, or 3, or 4, or... etc. To claim that it is indeed 1 and only 1, you must bound it

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:54:04 2020 No.12501867 >>12501865 0.999... is static, the length is aleph_0 from the get go. Your naive cartoon vision of a diesel engine chugging along is ridiculous. Embarrassing even.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:55:16 2020 No.12501870 >>12501864 wildburger was a mistake --the parents

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:55:40 2020 No.12501871

>>12501867
0.999... is an infinite sequence. There is no end to it. That's what makes it infinite. To say that it simplifies to 1 is to reject what is actually happening, the existence of an infinite sequence.
Your claim is essentially that infinite sequences cannot exist.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:55:54 2020 No.12501872 >>12501761 Because that’s the recursive definition of factorial OP.... you can make it not equal 0 if you want. But it’s arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:57:51 2020 No.12501875 >>12501871 >There is no end to it. precisely the reason it =1 Any finite amount of 9s would be <1, this is trivial

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 01:59:28 2020 No.12501877 >>12501809 what’s the defintion factorial. Anon. I’ll give you a hint built into the definition 0! Equals 1 in the recursive definition dumb fuck retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:02:28 2020 No.12501879 File: 42 KB, 562x437, hahaha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12501865 >confusing the amount of nines with the number they represent lol

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:03:02 2020 No.12501880 >>12501817 Never got into calculus?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:03:14 2020 No.12501881 >>12501761 everything breaks if you change that factorial to 0, so like all math you just make a meme out of a corner case that logically is ridiculous in order to use the rest of the convenient abstractions

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:04:37 2020 No.12501886 >>12501880 [math] \displaystyle 0. \bar{0}1 = \lim_{n \to \infty} 0. \underbrace{0 \dots 0}_{n ~ \text{times}}1 = \lim_{n \to \infty} \left [ \left ( \sum_{k=1}^n \dfrac{0}{10^k} \right ) + \dfrac{1}{10^{n+1}} \right ] =0 [/math]

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:04:59 2020 No.12501887 >>12501881 it’s not ridiculous it’s just the definition of factorial. The based case is such that 0! Equals 1.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:05:22 2020 No.12501888 >>12501875 There is no such thing as trivial in logic and metaphysics. Everything must be scrutinized. Pragmatism be damned.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:06:03 2020 No.12501890 File: 525 KB, 1280x1280, League-of-Legends-фэндомы-Lulu-Veigar-4536858.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12501761 You could read 0! = 1 as [math] 1\cdot 0! = 1 \cdot () [/math] where () indicates no action or NOOP if you will

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:06:44 2020 No.12501891 >>12501888 >Pragmatism be damned so it seems merry xmas little autist

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:07:12 2020 No.12501892 >>12501886 Look man, no need to copy-paste schizo nonsense. Going beyond elementary numbers systems, (1/some degree of infinity) is an infinitesimal number.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:09:05 2020 No.12501895 >>12501892 >nonsense point it out your 'm-muh feelings' are worthless

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:10:08 2020 No.12501899 >>12501892 >infinitesimal number under R, that is zero

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:11:54 2020 No.12501905 >>12501899 >under R yes >going beyond elementary number systems I guess you didn't catch this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:13:58 2020 No.12501909 >>12501905 >going beyond sorry, not bi-curious

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:14:12 2020 No.12501910 >>12501877 Definition: > n! = 1 * 2 * 3 * ... * (n-1) * n So... > 4! = 1 * 2 * 3 * 4 > 3! = 1 * 2 * 3 > 2! = 1 * 2 > 1! = 1 and... > 0! = ? NO, it's not fucking 1 again. It's undefined because there are no non-negative integers before 0.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:16:36 2020 No.12501918 >>12501910 >undefined 1! is defined 1 is defined

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:17:54 2020 No.12501921 >>12501910 It's not undefined, it's that way because it's convenient. There's not much of a logic put into it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:18:45 2020 No.12501925 >>12501910 That’s not the definition retarded brainlet also for 1 what’s it’s n-1???? Undefined times 1?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:20:11 2020 No.12501930

>>12501813
The difference between .9... and 1 is not infinitely small though because there is not infinitesimal limit to the 9s, there are infinite 9s, the difference between those two symbols is nothing just like the difference between -e^i*pi and cos^2(x)+sin^2(x) is nothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:21:42 2020 No.12501933 >>12501930 >is not infinitely small wrong, the '...' means infinite

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:22:08 2020 No.12501935 >>12501829 Nothing is still something, its the zero product, otherwise zero to its own power wouldn't be one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:23:21 2020 No.12501938 >>12501935 >Nothing is still something found the virgin

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:23:47 2020 No.12501940 >>12501871 No, technically his claim is that infinite sequences can converge to finite values same reason euler's identity works.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:27:55 2020 No.12501944 >>12501933 Exactly, it doesn't ever end, it is infinite, it won't end at some infinitesimal value before the end, it will never end, the end will converge to fit to it and the definition of 1 converges to fit exactly .9... as you would expect.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:29:19 2020 No.12501948 >>12501944 Rounding is real, reject infinities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:29:52 2020 No.12501949 >>12501938 Found the hole.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:31:40 2020 No.12501954 >>12501948 Converging is more real than rounding. Convergence is perfectly capable of incorporating infinities.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:33:18 2020 No.12501957
File: 287 KB, 620x763, OccamsRazor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12501925
That is the definition, you retarded faggot.
>also for 1 what’s it’s n-1???? Undefined times 1?
If you weren't retarded you would know that when you are trying to calculate the factorial you multiply all the numbers from 1 to n together.
All the numbers from 1 to 1 is just 1 retard (if you like you could do 1*1 but that still gives 1 so, cope.).
But seriously, ask yourself, why does my definition work for every number except 0 if it's so wrong?
And why does your definition have to reach to get 0 to be defined?
It's called Occam's razor, use it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:38:12 2020 No.12501970 >>12501954 Convergence is outright rejection of infinities. If the infinitesimal is not permitted, why permit the infinite? Thus, rounding is real.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:41:05 2020 No.12501974 >>12501949 awww, it's a retarded virgin

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:41:49 2020 No.12501977

>>12501970
Nah convergence completely utilizes infinite series while rounding rejects anything past a certain imagined threshold because converges is a real use of infinity while rounding is an imaginary rejection of infinities and certainly infitesimals.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:42:08 2020 No.12501978 >>12501944 >it will >>12501867

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:46:00 2020 No.12501990 >>12501978 It will not or it isn't infinite because you can not set a limit on something that is defined as unlimited.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:54:30 2020 No.12502009 >>12501761 You're a retard. The definition of n! includes a special case defining 0! as equal to 1. There is no discussion to be had because that's literally just its definition.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:57:51 2020 No.12502019 >>12501990 >it isn't infinite wrong

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:58:00 2020 No.12502021 >>12502009 >Anything can simply be defined as a factorial amount of nothing. Deal with it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:59:06 2020 No.12502024 >>12502019 There is no end to infinity, it can not be limited in that way, no matter how many single word posts you make declaring your opinion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 02:59:58 2020 No.12502025 >>12501809 (-1)! = 0!/0 = 1/0 this is why it is undefined, fren :^)

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:01:33 2020 No.12502028

>>12501940
At what exact point does 0.999... become 1?
Is it after the 10,000,000,000th 9?
As far as I can see, the only thing that changes is that more 9's are added. The sequence just gets longer indefinitely, because it is infinite. It's a never-ending sequence of 9's.
If I take a person and give them an unlimited supply of ink and paper and tell them to write 0.9... and keep writing 9's forever, there is no point at which the paper reads "1". Just more 9's. If Euler's identity cannot make the paper read 1, then Euler's identity is not useful here.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:04:13 2020 No.12502037 >>12502024 >Infinity is infinity, therefore infinity. No one ever questions their adherence to infinity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:06:34 2020 No.12502044 >>12502037 because it is an axiom read a book

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:07:59 2020 No.12502048 >>12502028 >let's pretend infinite is finite retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:08:10 2020 No.12502049 >>12502044 Never question axioms. Especially ones that yield problems.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:08:10 2020 No.12502050

>>12502028
>At what exact point does 0.999... become 1?
It is one point, the point 1, always, they are the same thing, it happens at the same point -e^i*pi and cos^2(x)+sin^2(x) becomes 1 too, the point is a pretty busy intersection.

>Is it after the 10,000,000,000th 9?
Yes that number is far less than infinity.

>It's a never-ending sequence of 9's.
Exactly, so you have to look towards convergence and how to work with infinite series.

>If I take a person and give them an unlimited supply of ink and paper and tell them to write 0.9
OK, so they have exactly 1 unlimited supply of material and will write until they have completely exhausted that 1 supply you provided them with, so it equals exactly 1 unit of supplies.

Euler's identity can read 1: -e^i*pi = 1, so it must be infinitely useful in this case.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:09:21 2020 No.12502054 >>12502028 >just gets longer >>12501867

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:10:32 2020 No.12502055 >>12502049 lrn2read

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:12:24 2020 No.12502062 >>12502055 Further proof that math is not a science and deserves no respect.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:18:09 2020 No.12502074

The definition of the factorial n! is THE PRODUCT OF ALL NUMBERS FROM 1 TO N. Therefore it is obvious that it is only defined for numbers from 1 to n. Clearly it couldn't be defined for 0 because a product of numbers from 0 to n would be just 0 for all n, trivializing the entire concept. Pointing out patterns like n! = (n+1)!/(n+1) is not the definition of the factorial and therefore not the answer to the question. Patterns can be deceiving. And what about the "empty product"? A product is a list of numbers multiplied, for it to be empty is for it to have no multiplications (for a multiplication requires multiplicands). Clearly the empty product is just another instance of emptiness, nothingness, void, however you wish to call it; in any case it is absurd to regard it as somehow a distinct concept of emptiness than emptiness itself, especially absurd is to assign it a numerical value like 1, the sign of oneness, of wholeness, the exact opposite of emptiness, of nothingness. If 0! was to have a numerical value, 0, the number which signifies nothing, would be it. But the definition of the factorial demands 0! to be an undefined quantity.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:21:01 2020 No.12502081 >>12502062 >oh noes, reading go eat some more crayons

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:22:04 2020 No.12502083 >>12502062 >math is not a science duh /sci/ - Science & Math

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:23:34 2020 No.12502085 File: 266 KB, 521x937, BasedDepartment.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12502074

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:25:19 2020 No.12502090

>>12502081
One of these days you'll have to specify which type of axiom you reference. One, I would agree with your assumption of self evidence. The other is open season for consideration, and you reject said consideration. Infinity is not a logical axiom, it is a non-logical axiom. Open season, you reprobate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:27:18 2020 No.12502095 >>12501779 >is retarded

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:27:22 2020 No.12502096

>>12502054
Yes, 0.999... is 1 if you believe a priori that 0.999... is 1. I openly admit that.
>>12502050
>The point 1, always, they are the same thing
I only seem to get this answer from people who already accept that 0.999... = 1. It's like I ask "Why do you think these two things are the same thing?" and you say "Because they're the same thing". But I can see that the two are literally different and it takes more than that to convince me otherwise.
>Yes that number is far less than infinity.
It was chosen to be arbitrarily large.
>Exactly, so you have to look towards convergence and how to work with infinite series.
I have to see an example of this. Show me a real person in real life working with a real infinite series that actually exists and isn't just some arbitrary abstract mathematics. If no infinite sequence exists in reality then there is no applicability of terms like 0.999... and the term shouldn't exist at all.
>So that equals 1 unit of supplies
This is sophistry which avoids the point. You're mistaking a finger which points at the moon for the moon. Assume that the person also has an infinite lifespan and infinite energy and never has to take a break. The only way they stop is if the heat death of the universe occurs. Now arguably that's not an infinite timespan, sure, but if there is literally no possible way to refer to a real infinite sequence then what is even the point of positing anything about infinite sequences?
Don't reference pi or anything like it. I want something real. Not an abstract piece of mathematics. If there's nothing real it can be applied to, it's not real.
>Euler's identity
Can be read multiple ways (=0 or =1) depending on how it's written, but fails to actually mean anything other than "2.71828 multiplied by itself a number of times equal to the product of pi and the solution to (x^2 + 1 = 0) is equal to 1." Mathematicians tell me this is beautiful and meaningful, but it doesn't mean anything to me other than what it is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:27:31 2020 No.12502097 >>12502083 >Taking the piss >"This guy is taking the piss wrong!"

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:28:41 2020 No.12502099 >>12502090 >which type of axiom ttps://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=infinity An unbounded quantity that is greater than every real number.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:33:59 2020 No.12502107 >>12501761 n!=Γ(n+1) 0!=Γ(1)=1

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:38:25 2020 No.12502116 >>12502099 Provided >logical axiom and >non-logical axiom Are you able to differentiate? Is infinity self evident, or an assumed necessity to the structure of mathematics? Am I questioning the obvious, or questioning an assumption?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:43:17 2020 No.12502128

>>12502096
>. But I can see that the two are literally different and it takes more than that to convince me otherwise.
If nobody else can see, why don't you plot it on a graph for them and show them the difference.

>arbitrarily large
its still specifically smaller than an infinity

> Show me a real person in real life working with a real infinite series
Brook Taylor worked in real life to develop the Taylor series to demonstrate a infinite series of real functions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series

> Assume that the person also has an infinite lifespan and infinite energy and never has to take a break.
Ok you have still given them 1 unit of supplies, but have redefined the terms of supplies, but everything I said still applies because it can be done with pure math that doesn't require specific supplies and can work with any arbitrary supply set.

>The only way they stop is if the heat death
If you are referencing a finite universe, then your example can not be infinite and its a bad example to try to illustrate an infinite value, try moving to an infinite multiverse and repeating the experiment.

> If there's nothing real it can be applied to, it's not real.
It can be applied to the set of real numbers, though.

>other than what it is
It is a demonstration that the same thing can be written two different ways and that infinite series can converge to finite values.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 03:47:58 2020 No.12502136 >>12502096 pi is a real number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:00:40 2020 No.12502159 >>12501761 >0.9999... = 1 This is a weakness of the decimal system having a certain finite set of symbols, you don't have this exact problem in binary, for instance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:02:26 2020 No.12502161 >>12502159 0.111... = 1 in binary

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:04:44 2020 No.12502164

>>12502128
>why don't you plot it on a graph
Here's the very most simple difference between the two
>Smaller than an infinity
An infinity is nothing but more of the same. "1" does not magically appear once a certain number of "9"'s are added to 0.99...
If the change occurs at any point, it must occur prior to hitting infinity, since it is impossible for anything to hit infinity. There isn't infinite *anything* out there. Not even infinite interactions between subatomic particles.
>Taylor series
I read that page and it didn't include even one real-life thing in it, just pure math. Those are just a bunch of symbols that can mean whatever the author wants them to mean, they're not real events. No, you show me an infinite line -- a real infinite line. Something which has no beginning and no end. In real life. Not another mathematical construct that doesn't mean anything at all.
> everything I said still applies because it can be done with pure math
That is exactly the thing. It's pure math. It doesn't apply to reality at all. It's meaningless nonsense.
>try moving to an infinite multiverse and repeating the experiment.
There is no multiverse that the person can go to which will magically turn the "9's" into a single "1", unless by some stroke of luck all "9's" in that universe do magically turn to a single "1", but that doesn't seem a reasonable road to go down. Given literally infinite time in infinite multiverses, the 9's will never become 1. You make it 1 out of convenience, not because it is true.
>It can be applied to the set of real numbers, though.
Numbers are only meaningful when applied to real objects. If it has no application to reality then it is worthless drivel.
>It is a demonstration that the same thing can be written two different ways and that infinite series can converge to finite values.
The numbers work that way because they're defined to work that way, not because they're reflective of anything in reality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:05:46 2020 No.12502167 File: 11 KB, 795x533, 9 graph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12502164 Image didn't post, trying again

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:06:04 2020 No.12502169 >>12502161 binary uses floating point logic to represent decimals, not whatever that is

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:07:33 2020 No.12502171 >>12502167 >so close, but not 100% How close is it, what is the difference between the two, if not 100%, what percent of the way is it to 1? You forgot to graph all of that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:10:24 2020 No.12502175 1/3 * 3 = 3 * 1/3 1/3 * 3 = 0.999... 3 * 1/3 = 3/3 = 1 Big fucking think.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:11:44 2020 No.12502178
File: 1.62 MB, 350x190, 1606351556354.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>12501779
abandon all hope in mathematics now, or forever hold ur peace.

integersummation(1/x^2) from 0 -> infinty = pi^2 / 6
but
integersummation(1/x)from 0 -> infinty = infinity

modern mathematics is a joke

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:13:07 2020 No.12502179 >>12501925 Holy shit, either this fucker fucked off (maybe to go learn what Occam's Razor is) or he genuinely couldn't make up a response to what this anon >>12501957 said. Good job getting BTFO retard, lol.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:16:11 2020 No.12502183

>>12502171
>How close is it
Very close.
>what is the difference between the two
Small enough to not be expressible in your nonsense math language which can't account for the vast majority of statements, even numerical.
>if not 100%, what percent of the way is it to 1?
So close it can taste it.
That is to say, again, incredibly close, so much so that mathematics does not contain language adequate to express the difference. Luckily, we both speak English and not the inferior pseudo-language of mathematics. Because we both speak English, you understand completely that there is a difference, but you refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit into the extremely limited language you want to express it in. Like how translating "です" into "it is" may be vaguely accurate, but really it isn't -- there isn't an English term that functions the way "です" does in Japanese. Mathematics are the same. You clearly understand what I mean when I say "0.99... =/= 1", but you deny even understanding it. Why? Are you really so attached to this failure of a language (mathematics)?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:17:49 2020 No.12502187

>>12502164
>"1" does not magically appear once a certain number of "9"'s are added to 0.99...
It was the same all along, it didn't need to appear, it just needs to be written differently like you can write 3-2 as 1 also, but no matter how many time you write a 3, then a dash, then a 2 forever and it will never be a 1, but it will always be the same value as 1.

>it didn't include even one real
weird, when I ctrl+f real, the word appears numerous times

>how me an infinite line -- a real infinite line
The real number line.

>Something which has no beginning and no end. In real life.
Show me a Polaroid of the beginning and the end of real life, or it isn't really real either by your standards.

>There is no multiverse that the person can go to which will magically turn the "9's" into a single "1"
Luckily in this universe you don't need magic, you need equivalence and and an infinite series of nines in the decimal place is, by real analysis, equivalent to 1.

>If it has no application to reality then it is worthless drivel.
If you can't find an application for real numbers, where so many other people have, maybe you are the worthless drivel who can't comprehend what is real.

Numbers are reflective of an objective self sustaining self referential logic that has had continuous application to the human condition for all of recorded space and time because you can't even record space or time conditions without numbers.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:22:49 2020 No.12502194

>>12502183
>Very close.
Completely overlapping is the exact state of very closeness unless you can come up with an amount of difference on either side.

>>12502183
>Small enough to not be expressible in your nonsense math language
Some guy already used math jargon to express it ITT, so you aren't even smart enough to use the tools in this thread to make your point and you probably won't even find the term I am referencing.

>So close it can taste it.
You can only taste something that is inside of your, are you finally admitting that .99... is completely inside of 1?

>You clearly understand what I mean when I say "0.99... =/= 1"
Yes I obviously understand that you are misinformed, that is why I have spent all this time trying to fix your understanding, if I didn't understand, I wouldn't have had a logical reply for literally ever single misconception you have presented thus far.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:23:51 2020 No.12502197

>>12502187
So you're telling me that you honestly, wholeheartedly believe that the person is writing "1" the entire time and that them writing "9's" infinitely is irrelevant to that? Are... are you okay?
>weird, when I ctrl+f real, the word appears numerous times
Real, as in an object in the real world, as in actual things which exist. Not "real" in your nonsense pseudo-language.
>The real number line.
Doesn't exist.
>Show me a Polaroid of the beginning and the end of real life, or it isn't really real either by your standards.
Easy. Google "corpse" and "fetus" and you'll find pictures.
>Luckily in this universe you don't need magic, you need equivalence and and an infinite series of nines in the decimal place is, by real analysis, equivalent to 1.
There is no equivalence to an infinite series of 9's because an infinite series does not exist anywhere outside the imagination of mathematicians.
>Numbers are reflective of an objective self sustaining self referential logic that has had continuous application to the human condition for all of recorded space and time because you can't even record space or time conditions without numbers.
You're brainwashed. Nothing could possibly convince you that mathematics are what they are: a human invented pseudo-language which operates poorly at attempting to describe phenomena and which pseudointellectuals believe represents (and this is really laughable!) something objective.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:24:53 2020 No.12502199

>>12502194
>You can only taste something that is inside of your, are you finally admitting that .99... is completely inside of 1?
You're not a human being. I'm convinced of at least that. You don't taste something before biting into it? Hold a cup of coffee up to your nose, you fool.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:34:14 2020 No.12502212 File: 14 KB, 796x353, 1 vs 9999.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] To be clear, you would have to be an absolute fool to deny pic related and the differences between the left and right

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:35:07 2020 No.12502213 >>12501761 How are gamma function or recursive definitions a meme?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:35:29 2020 No.12502214

>>12502197
>believe that the person is writing "1" the entire time and that them writing "9's
In the sense that someone was actually writing π the entire time they were writing 3.1415..., yes.

>Real, as in an object in the real world
You are honestly going to tell me that you have never seen a number in the real world? What is your address in the real world, just a bunch of letters?

>Doesn't exist.
More pictures exist of real number lines than the beginning or end of life and no, not the end of some individual life, but of life itself.

>an infinite series does not exist anywhere outside the imagination of mathematician
Mathematician enlisted the help of engineers who allowed infinite series to exist in analog computing with quantum components like the transistor.

>Nothing could possibly convince you that mathematics are what they are
Nothing has already fully convinced me what mathematics are because knowing that 0!=1 informs me that nothing can be anything and that it also equals .9... and -e^i*pi lets me know that nothing (ie anything) can be infinite and irrational too, but its fine because that's math, that's life, that's love.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:37:26 2020 No.12502218

>>12502021
It's simply in the definition. Other mathematical functions wouldn't work if it wasn't defined that way. Fir example the choose function. You can't reason from the standard logic of a factorial what 0! is, It was simply defined that way so that other functions would work.

Mathematicians do this all the time, they define something as the answer to a problem and then solve it. 0! is essentially defined as the number that would make nCr (choose function) always an integer and always defined for integer values of n and r.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:37:35 2020 No.12502220

>>12502199
>You don't taste something before biting into it? Hold a cup of coffee up to your nose
That is called smell not taste, you dumb robot, you didn't say you could smell it, you said you could taste it and even with smell you are smelling the particles that are inside of you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:38:38 2020 No.12502223 >>12502218 >You can't reason from the standard logic of a factorial what 0! is Just say 0! is undefined like half of the mathematicians try to say for 0^0 when pressed.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:40:44 2020 No.12502225 >>12501761 No it isn’t. The empty product is 1.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:42:12 2020 No.12502228 >>12502223 Every mathematician will tell you 0! = 1

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:42:52 2020 No.12502230 Apparently "doing nothing" within itself is choosing to do something.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:43:43 2020 No.12502231 >>12502228 When will any of those mathematicians need to use that identity, though? How often does 0^0 come up for all the ones that refuse to define it?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:44:11 2020 No.12502232

>>12502214
>In the sense that someone was actually writing π the entire time they were writing 3.1415..., yes.
They aren't. They're writing 3.1415... if they were to complete the number, it would be π, but that is impossible. You cannot write π any way other than π if you want an actual representation of π.
>You are honestly going to tell me that you have never seen a number in the real world?
I've seen writing that has numbers in it. I've also seen pictures with Superman in them. Superman isn't real and you know it.
>More pictures exist of real number lines than the beginning or end of life and no, not the end of some individual life, but of life itself.
I haven't seen a single photograph of an extant, actual, physical real number line. But I bet if enough bombs went off and you got a polaroid to go off at just the right moment it would, indeed, show you the end of all life. And if you're including the possibility of extraterrestrial life -- add more bombs to the mix and you'll get the same.
>Mathematician enlisted the help of engineers who allowed infinite series to exist in analog computing with quantum components like the transistor.
You mean mathematicians enlisted the help of engineers to allow computers to represent concepts that only exist in mathematicians' heads and, now, on computer screens. Like superheroes -- it's not real. It doesn't exist. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
>Nothing has already fully convinced me what mathematics are because knowing that 0!=1 informs me that nothing can be anything and that it also equals .9... and -e^i*pi lets me know that nothing (ie anything) can be infinite and irrational too
So what you're saying is that mathematics is genuinely nonsense, that every mathematical statement is absolutely meaningless, and that only the most idiotic fools ever to live would waste their time playing with fake ideas about things that don't exist? At least the religious believe their nonsense is real.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:46:16 2020 No.12502236 >>12502230 Only nothing can do nothing and when it does that is defined as anything, if it is defined at all, but if it is defined, it is equivalent to a factorial amount of nothing that is, again, defined as a unit of anything.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:46:23 2020 No.12502237

>>12502220
You taste it without it going in your mouth. Smell and taste are deeply linked. Anyone who has ever smelled or tasted anything knows that.
Plug your nose next time you eat. You'll notice a big difference in taste. Simple experiment, requires no math.
Now you can claim that it's particles in your mouth but what percentage of the particles from the food are in your mouth when you smell it? Hmm? Is that food going to disappear any time soon with you just smelling it? You'll taste it, sure. Go ahead and try to eat like that, see how far it gets you.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:57:39 2020 No.12502254 [DELETED]

>>12502231
0^0 has a different context depending on what field of mathematics. In countable contexts, so anything involving discrete counting such as computer science 0^0 = 1. Otherwise in real analysis, particularly in the context of transcendental functions, 0^0's output can be approached by any value. This is why it's left undefined.

For instance [math]\frac{0}{0} has no algebraic meaning, you can't define any way to make it adhere to the rules of algebra, but [math]\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{sin(x)}{x} = 0[/math] this is partially why sin(x) is called a transcendental function in the first place, it [math]\textit{transcends}[/math] our rules of algebra.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 04:58:22 2020 No.12502256

>>12502232
>You cannot write π any way other than π if you want an actual representation of π.
Then why is the page for Pi so long and why do they write it so many different ways?

>I've seen writing that has numbers in it.
Can you post what the difference you are alluding to is, I seen numbers written and I have heard them spoken about, but I don't know what you mean by writing that has numbers in it, are you talking about function or equations or something?

>I haven't seen a single photograph of an extant, actual, physical real number line.
They are pretty easy to draw, if you go back and look at the wiki page about them.

>I bet if enough bombs went off and you got a polaroid to go off at just the right moment it would
No, a polaroid machine takes an amount of time to develop a picture, so it could not both capture the end and develop what it captured into a polaroid picture.

> that only exist in mathematicians' heads and, now, on computer screens.
They don't just exist on the screens of the computers, they exists in the logical components of the computer too, superheroes are types of organic beings and organic beings can not be represented by numerical computer logic, so that is not a good example because they physically exist in very different ways.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:03:54 2020 No.12502268

>>12502231
0^0 has a different context depending on what field of mathematics. In countable contexts, so anything involving discrete counting such as computer science 0^0 = 1. Otherwise in real analysis, particularly in the context of transcendental functions, 0^0's output can be approached by any value. This is why it's left undefined.

For instance [math]\frac{0}{0}[/math] has no algebraic meaning,you cant define any way to make it adhere to the rules of algebra, it's impossible, but [math]lim_{x \to 0} \frac{sin(x)}{x} = 0 [/math] this is partially why sin(x) is called a transcendental function in the first place, it [math]\textit{transcends}[/math] our rules of algebra.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:04:01 2020 No.12502269

>>12502237
>You taste it without it going in your mouth.
No taste is defined as the sensation you get from something that physically contacts the inner mucus membranes of your mouth and tongue.

>Smell and taste are deeply linked.
Yet you can smell something outside of you that produces small particles that enter your nose and your mouth, but you can only actually taste things that make contact with the inside of your mouth by definition.

>next time you eat. You'll notice a big difference in taste.
Try to have eaten something without it being completely inside of you.

> what percentage of the particles from the food are in your mouth when you smell it?
100% of the particles you smell are in your nose and mouth.

>Is that food going to disappear any time soon with you just smelling it?
Yes through the decaying process, that is why you are smelling it because it is radiating decaying particles and slowly being rendered to nothing by the environment that produced it from a certain amount of nothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:05:08 2020 No.12502271 >>12502254 How often has it been a major problem that there are conflicting definitions for the same symbol?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:09:18 2020 No.12502276

>>12502256
>Then why is the page for Pi so long and why do they write it so many different ways?
Maybe because mathematicians are genuinely stupid and believe that their inaccurate system represents reality accurately.
>Can you post what the difference you are alluding to is, I seen numbers written and I have heard them spoken about, but I don't know what you mean by writing that has numbers in it, are you talking about function or equations or something?
When I write "1 + 2" or something of the like, it is indeed writing that has numbers in it -- numbers in this case being symbols used to represent numeric values, which are an invention of the human mind. When I imagine "1 + 2" or something like it, I may be "doing" math but I'm not "writing" anything.
For me to have a real, extant example, there must be an objective "1" in the world outside of human conception. There must be an objective "26". There must be an objective actualized physical, substantive thing which is referred to when we say "1" or "26" or any other number for us to be referring to anything that is real.
When we say "I have 5 balloons", we aren't expressing a fact about reality. We're performing a cognitive function and expressing it orally. The numbers do not exist outside of your head. That's why you can't find a picture of a legitimate real number line.
>No, a polaroid machine takes an amount of time to develop a picture
Supposing you had a time-slice perfect polaroid, there isn't a problem. I mean, you wouldn't be able to see it -- not unless you're a robot or something. But it'd exist, it'd be a real photograph.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:13:17 2020 No.12502282

>>12502256
>They don't just exist on the screens of the computers, they exists in the logical components of the computer too, superheroes are types of organic beings and organic beings can not be represented by numerical computer logic, so that is not a good example because they physically exist in very different ways.
Anon, superheroes do not exist. They're imaginary. Like gods. I don't know how else to break this to you, but please, genuinely, if you think that superman is going to save you when you're getting mugged, seriously get help. Superman doesn't exist. He's not real. The vast majority of people understand that, and it really concerns me that you don't. An imagined concept isn't real until it's actualized in the world. Until then it has no value whatsoever. Every example of a number that you'll ever find is an artistic or linguistic representation of a number. That thing -- that number that they're trying to represent -- it doesn't exist. It's not real. It's a fantasy image. Numbers are only real insofar as superman is real. People can make images of superman, statues and action figures, representations of superman -- but there is no original. It's a simulacrum. A copy without an original.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:17:08 2020 No.12502287

>>12502269
>No taste is defined as
By whom? Why should I care about their definition? I taste it, and that's all the definition I need. If someone offers a definition which doesn't account for my experience, that definition is absolutely worthless.
>Try to have eaten something without it being completely inside of you.
Easy. You ever not finish what's on your plate? You ate pizza, but the whole pizza is not inside of you. Part of it is in the fridge for tomorrow.
>100% of the particles you smell are in your nose and mouth.
That wasn't the question. What percentage of the particles which are in the food am I tasting when I smell the food? I do taste the food and I reject any definition which denies reality and claims I don't.
>Yes through the decaying process, that is why you are smelling it because it is radiating decaying particles and slowly being rendered to nothing by the environment that produced it from a certain amount of nothing.
So, how long for your average cupcake? You gonna stick to this diet?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:18:18 2020 No.12502288

>>12502271
There are no "conflicting definitions" 0^0 is undefined, so is 0/0, that is how they are defined.

0^0 = 1 is sort of an artifact from computer science's choice to start counting the natural numbers at 0. For instance arrays in programming start counting at 0, as does theoretical computer science in general. Also 0^0 = 1 in the theory of Taylor series for a good reason, but that involves real analysis.

Conflicting definitions between computer science and pure mathematics happen all the time.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
>Computer science uses the big O, big Theta Θ, little o, little omega ω and Knuth's big Omega Ω notations.[28] Analytic number theory often uses the big O, small o, Hardy–Littlewood's big Omega Ω (with or without the +, - or ± subscripts)

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:21:27 2020 No.12502294

>>12502276
> genuinely stupid and believe that their inaccurate system represents reality accurately.
OK, then what is the accurate system to represent reality? Something derived from your words and subjective feelings instead? How do you measure their accuracy and represent how close reality is to expectation with only more words and no numbers or graphs?

>When I write "1 + 2" or something of the like, it is indeed writing that has numbers in it
Not that you wrote down an equation with numbers.
Writing with numbers would be like one fine morning I stumbled upon two fine gentlemen fighting over three boxes of flour.

>there must be an objective "1" in the world.
Like "The Big Red 1"?

>There must be an objective "26"
26 can be both an object itself or describing a specific number of objects.

>substantive thing which is referred to when we say "1" or "26" or any other number for us to be referring to anything that is real.
If there wasn't and objective 1 or 26, you couldn't write those objective numbers down and point to them while ranting about how they aren't an object.

>The numbers do not exist outside of your head
You said the number of balloons is 5, so if you accept that the balloons do objectively exists, how can you not say that 5 balloons objectively exist, I don't understand, the balloons objectively exist and objectively they exist in 5 different objective physical configurations of balloon.

The picture of the real number line is like the first thing on the wiki page.

>But it'd exist, it'd be a real photograph.
No because everything ended before it was made, so it was never made into an object, so it was not real.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:27:19 2020 No.12502299 >>12501761 Γ(1) = 1 QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:27:32 2020 No.12502301

>>12502294
>OK, then what is the accurate system to represent reality?
One doesn't exist. Common English language is superior to mathematics for literally everything. though.
>Something derived from your words and subjective feelings instead?
Tell me, do you have access to any objective information? Genuinely.
>How do you measure their accuracy and represent how close reality is to expectation with only more words and no numbers or graphs?
When have you EVER interacted with reality? Why make the assumption that real things are measurable? Why make the assumption that the universe has to work in a way that's convenient for the human brain?
>Not that you wrote down an equation with numbers.
"Four"
"Seven"
"Nine"
>26 can be both an object itself or describing a specific number of objects.
No such object exists in reality though. It's only a theoretical object that exists in the imagination and in representations of imagined things.
>If there wasn't and objective 1 or 26, you couldn't write those objective numbers down and point to them while ranting about how they aren't an object.
There isn't an objective definition of any linguistic object. All words are vague. Numbers included. Rather, we define things collaboratively; their definition is a consequence of their use.
>No because everything ended before it was made
Only life, life is not everything.
>I don't understand, the balloons objectively exist and objectively they exist in 5 different objective physical configurations of balloon.
I'm going to respond to this in a second post.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:29:03 2020 No.12502303 >>12502169 wrong

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:30:00 2020 No.12502305

>>12502282
>They're imaginary.
They are not just imaginary, they are a specific type of imaginary entity called fictional which is specifically known to not actually exists and were usually invented or fabricated to subvert the expectations of reality.

Numbers are not fictional, they are imaginary entities that exist in both the the inner mind and physical world like inventions, graphs, or diagrams.

>Every example of a number that you'll ever find is an artistic or linguistic representation of a number.
Other than all the examples I have already provided which are neither.

> it doesn't exist. It's not real
So there weren't really 5 balloons in your previous example and its just a fantasy since 1 can not exist, you don't actually exist since things can't be quantified and you are actually just my fantasy?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:30:23 2020 No.12502306 >>12502116 >Is infinity blah blah blah read the definition

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:35:56 2020 No.12502321

>>12502287
>By whom? Why should I care about their definition?
Every definition I can find on the internet, like merriam-webster for example, who else defines it the way you do and why do you assume your opinion would be useful to others if it doesn't conform to their definitions?

>You ate pizza, but the whole pizza is not inside of you
So what part of 0.999 is inside of 1 and exactly how much pizza does 1 whole pizza account for that 0.9... whole pizza does not?

> What percentage of the particles which are in the food am I tasting when I smell the food?
You are smelling when you smell, not tasting, you have to eat or drink it to taste it, unless you can show me a trusted third party source, other than your shitty personal experience, that says otherwise.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:37:09 2020 No.12502327

>>12502288
>There are no "conflicting definitions" 0^0 is undefined
You just said sometimes it is defined and that sort of conflicts with the whole undefined thing.

>0^0 = 1 is sort of an artifact
So then they can just change it?
Then why can't they just change 0! to undefined and get rid of the confusion?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:39:22 2020 No.12502333 >>12502327 >Then why can't they just change 0! to undefined and get rid of the confusion? what confusion?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:43:22 2020 No.12502345

>>12502294
>5 balloons
So if I say "I have 5 balloons", what is being said is that I am in possession of a set of balloons, and according to the system of numbers that we're using, there are 5 of them. I say there are 5 of them, but only because I choose to categorize them in a certain way. It's a function of my brain, not of reality. The balloons genuinely exist, yes, but they are individual balloons. We invent the idea of "5" so that we can perform certain actions, i.e. trading, but that only ever reflects our subjective categorization scheme. In reality, there are just balloons. Individual balloons. And we can count them if we want, but when we do so we're imposing our categorization schema onto the objects. Instead of viewing them as the real, extant, individual objects that they are, we employ a mental invention: a categorization. Categorization doesn't exist outside of the mind and objects meant to represent the contents of a human mind like computers.
Suppose that there is a person, Harry, and another person, Sally. It's perfectly legitimate to say: "Harry is at the movie theater" and "Sally is at the movie theater." When we perform linguistic addition and say "Harry AND Sally are at the movie theater", we're imposing our thought structures on reality, not the other way around. We're literally performing a logical function in our minds for the purpose of ease, not accuracy. "Harry and Sally..." could have very different connotations, you know!

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:45:27 2020 No.12502349 >>12501817 Your dick = 0! Your IQ = 0

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:48:45 2020 No.12502356

>>12502301
>Common English language is superior to mathematics for literally everything
Then give me a quick rundown of the accurate system of representing reality you are basing your life on includes no quantification or valuation of any kind.

> do you have access to any objective information?
Yes, thanks to numbers and measurement we can find objective values and quantities for all sorts of physical information.

>Why make the assumption that real things are measurable?
Real things have a tenancy to have real quantity that yields real consequences, if reality couldn't be measured, I could simply ignore it all and it would go away. I don't think its convenient, but if human brains measurably evolved and actually exist, then they must have happened under a certain set of measurable circumstances that lead to a level of certain recognizable uniformity or nothing would make sense and every brain would be too complex for any other brain to reasonable interact with.

>No such object exists in reality though
Then how do you keep writing it down and physically communicating it to me over a vast separation of space and time if it doesn't exist in the reality of either space or time?

>All words are vague
Then what do you think you are getting by using them and how are they better then numbers at representing objective reality?

You are again confusing life with a living individual.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:49:07 2020 No.12502358 >>12501779 You are right that they are not the same in a vacuum but the real numbers are endowed with an equivalence relation and these two elements lie in the same equivalence class.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:50:02 2020 No.12502361

>>12502321
>Every definition I can find on the internet, like merriam-webster for example, who else defines it the way you do and why do you assume your opinion would be useful to others if it doesn't conform to their definitions?
Every person I've ever met in real life has agreed that they taste things when they smell them. Your dictionaries are obviously inadequate.
>So what part of 0.999 is inside of 1 and exactly how much pizza does 1 whole pizza account for that 0.9... whole pizza does not?
1 pizza is 1. Then when there's leftovers, those leftovers are 1. They're not missing anything, it's the original object (P1, I guess) that is missing part of itself. What remains is a new entity, a different object.
>You are smelling when you smell, not tasting, you have to eat or drink it to taste it, unless you can show me a trusted third party source, other than your shitty personal experience, that says otherwise.
All the world has is shitty personal experience. You're asking for large amounts of shitty personal experience. You know that, right? You understand that studies are mostly just large collections of related anecdotes, right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:50:05 2020 No.12502362 >>12502333 The confusion expressed in this thread and every meme thread about 0!.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:57:43 2020 No.12502379

>>12502345
>It's a function of my brain, not of reality.
Then how many of those balloons exist in reality?

>but they are individual balloons
How many?

> We invent the idea of "5" so that we can perform certain actions
No, we discovered the idea of 5 to accurately describe the physical quantity of actual objects, even animals that can't express the idea of 5 can recognize the physical existence of five similar objects.

>And we can count them if we want
Why can we count and number them, but we can't superman them? Is one much more real than the other or something?

>Categorization doesn't exist outside of the mind
It exists the the material and the logical components of the computer too, is that a mind, is there something ethereal inside the components of a computer like you claim there is inside your human mind that can have an imagination completely separate from physical reality?

>"Harry and Sally..." could have very different connotations
How does that provide a more accurate system of representation than numbers? Numbers can have very different connotations too as we have seen in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 05:59:34 2020 No.12502385 >>12501809 >You're just meming patterns into meaning. Which is set theory?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:00:09 2020 No.12502387

>>12502356
>Then give me a quick rundown of the accurate system of representing reality you are basing your life on includes no quantification or valuation of any kind.
I wake up in the morning. If I am hungry I eat. If not, I don't. I have a coffee. I read. I converse with friends. I do my schoolwork. I write what the professor wants me to write for my assignments. I use my debit card to buy things when I want or need them and I never look at the bill, nor have I run out of money. Anyway, I hired good people to handle my fortune so I really don't ever have to think about cash.
Like my main man Socrates, I make no effort to understand the world around me because I am convinced that there is no point in trying to understand it; that all of the so-called intellectuals have been shooting in the dark, blindly aiming to find truths which will forever elude them; that the wisest thing a man could say is "look, I don't know the truth, but I do know what's not the truth, and trust me buddy you're not speaking the truth." I have seen what the pursuit of "objective truth" does to those who seek it, and that is enough to convince me that it is a fool's errand.
I happily live, converse, have sex, sleep, stretch, and so on and so on without ever thinking of a single number throughout the day. It is only when pointing out the obvious falsehoods that mathfags believe wholeheartedly in that I ever reference numbers. The absolute conceit necessary to think that you've learned objective, absolute truths about reality -- don't make me laugh!

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:05:57 2020 No.12502402

>>12502361
>1 pizza is 1.
I thought you said 1 isn't a real thing? Try that explanation again without using numbers.

>it's the original object (P1, I guess) that is missing part of itself.
What percent of itself? 0%, since that is the percent of .9... missing from 1.

>You're asking for large amounts of shitty personal experience.
Large amounts of diverse personal experience rather than your single obviously shit personal experience, yes, and largely everyone disagrees with you and you can't find a single source to back you up other than "lots of people you met have totally told you."

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:08:44 2020 No.12502407 >>12502387 You described a shitty day in the life of some prole that I can't relate to, I want a fully accurate representation of reality, not some low level description of your personal servitude to your society.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:10:43 2020 No.12502411

>>12502379
"How many" is not a valid question. It is akin to saying "How good is breaking bad in reality?" Entirely subjective. We then have to consider what is defined as a balloon, and doing so will reveal that the definition of balloon is fuzzier than you're comfortable with.
>No, we discovered the idea of 5 to accurately describe the physical quantity of actual objects
It's really sad that you think that, anon. We didn't discover 5. We invented it. It doesn't exist outside of human conventions. Animals might recognize "less" or "more", but not "5".
>Why can we count and number them, but we can't superman them?
I'm confused by your wording here.
>It exists the the material and the logical components of the computer too, is that a mind, is there something ethereal inside the components of a computer like you claim there is inside your human mind that can have an imagination completely separate from physical reality?
The computer is not a mind, it is a representation of the contents of the mind. Like superman on a page. Superman is not real. Someone imagined it and then put it on paper.
There is nothing ethereal about the human mind. It is a physical system. Imagined objects which don't actually exist are just a process, a function that the brain can perform, the function of imagination. A hallucination is an event in the brain -- but the contents of the hallucination are not real.
>How does that provide a more accurate system of representation than numbers?
Because there are entire numeric concepts that numbers can't account for. For example, 0.999... represents something totally different than 1 and can be used linguistically in a number of different ways than 1 can, in ways that 1 definitely can't be used. Mathematics cannot express that distinction. It fails to do so. When people say "0.99... = 1" they don't even really have any idea what they're saying most of the time.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:12:22 2020 No.12502415

>>12502402
If everyone disagrees with me about what is obviously a true fact about reality that I experience on a daily basis, then everyone besides me is wrong. Simple as that. No study could convince me otherwise. I'm an empiricist, not a research worshiper.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:12:35 2020 No.12502417 >>12502387 >my idea of objective wisdom is complete ignorance, so when I see someone like mathematicians trying to present the closest thing we have to objective wisdom, I will accuse them of complete ignorance

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:13:23 2020 No.12502419

>>12502407
>You described a shitty day in the life of some prole that I can't relate to, I want a fully accurate representation of reality, not some low level description of your personal servitude to your society.
I only do things that I enjoy. You cannot accurately represent reality. It isn't possible. You don't even know what reality looks like.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:14:38 2020 No.12502423

>>12502417
It's more that it's sad that mathematicians fail to understand how utterly insufficient their "wisdom" is. You seriously don't know a single fact. You can't access objective, absolute truth. It's beyond you. It's beyond me. It's beyond everybody. Anyone who tells you different is a goddamn liar.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:18:37 2020 No.12502439

>>12502419
You already admitted that you don't either and you can't quantity things, so you have no way to validate your own statement or compare it to the validity of any other statement, you are one drug use away from your entire worldview breaking down completely and your position is one of weakness, learned helplessness, and ignorance.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:20:44 2020 No.12502445

>>12502411
>Because there are entire numeric concepts that numbers can't account for. For example, 0.999... represents something totally different than 1 and can be used linguistically in a number of different ways than 1 can, in ways that 1 definitely can't be used. Mathematics cannot express that distinction. It fails to do so. When people say "0.99... = 1" they don't even really have any idea what they're saying most of the time.
0.999... = 1 is still true though

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:20:50 2020 No.12502446 >>12502423 >You seriously don't know a single fact. You can't access objective, absolute truth 1 balloon plus 1 balloon equals 2 ballons and if you were born a man you will always be a man. Two facts and the absolute truth.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:24:59 2020 No.12502456

>>12502439
I can quantify things for practical purposes if I need to and still understand that quantification is not a valid tool for understanding reality. Luckily, I'm not a poorfag, so I don't really have to do any math at all. I can engage in actual intellectual pursuits. Finished the Greeks a while back. You ever read Epictetus? Guy was full of shit.
>worldview
lmao what kind of a loser adheres to a worldview? I read, I gather information, I come to my own conclusions, and I also realize that because I'm in a meat sack that can only hear certain frequencies of sound and can only see certain things in the light spectrum that there's a very good chance I'm not even asking the right questions to figure out the most basic facts about absolute, objective reality. But I do know when people are full of shit. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me that 0.99... = 1.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:25:46 2020 No.12502459 >>12502415 >I'm an empiricist, not a research worshiper. Then you are one bad experience away from total breakdown.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:27:05 2020 No.12502464

>>12502446
>1 balloon plus 1 balloon equals 2 ballons
This is only true if you accept the premises of mathematics and the laws of logic on faith. Addition is a mental process which doesn't reflect reality. Your deciding to count both balloons doesn't impact the balloon. The balloon does not objectively hold the property "is a member of a set of two balloons". It's just in your head.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:29:07 2020 No.12502468

>>12502459
I've had bad experiences, struggled more than any mathematician I've ever met, and make my way in the world blissfully. I have no worries, I have no unfulfilled needs, I have no goals I have failed to accomplish, I have no respect for those who claim to understand reality objectively.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:30:24 2020 No.12502472 >>12502456 prove 0.999 != 1 lol

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:31:15 2020 No.12502473

>>12502456
>I can quantify things for practical purposes
Thanks for admitting that everything you have previously insisted upon is impractical and in reality you use numbers all the time and recognize the physical necessity of their purpose.

>lmao what kind of a loser adheres to a worldview?
You for one since you have been getting all angry and arguing about your worldview and how independent from numbers you think it is for quite some time.

> I read, I gather information, I come to my own conclusions
That is called a worldview, Eisenstein.

>because I'm in a meat sack that can only hear certain frequencies of sound and can only see certain things in the light spectrum that there's a very good chance I'm not even asking the right questions
That is called uncertainty in your worldview and you should definitely admit to more of it if you want to convince me that your current worldview is more useful to me than my current worldview.

> Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me that 0.99... = 1.
It would be raining piss on you in that case and .99... = 1, no matter how much you don't want it to because its not how you see it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:32:37 2020 No.12502474 >>12501776 this begs the question

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:33:11 2020 No.12502476

>>12502464
>The balloon does not objectively hold the property "is a member of a set of two balloons".
You didn't know you could tie two balloons together either?
Did you know it is actually possible to blow one up inside the other too so you have two balloons inside of one?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:36:08 2020 No.12502482

>>12502472
1. For x = y to be true, for every statement involving x that statement's truth value cannot be impacted (i.e. a true statement being either falsified or rendered indeterminate) by replacing the term x with the term y, and vice versa.
2. There are statements where replacing "1" with "0.99..." will change the truth value of those statements.
3. There are statements where replacing "0.99..." with "1" will change the truth value of those statements.
4. :. 0.99... and 1 do not satisfy the requirements for x = y.
5. :. 0.99... =/= 1.

You will find that equations that make sense like 1 + 1 = 2 always, without fail, satisfy 1.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:38:32 2020 No.12502491 >>12502482 >2 is a single symbol >1 + 1 is not a single symbol >1 + 1 != 2

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:41:05 2020 No.12502497 >>12502482 >will change the truth value of those statements. Which statements and how does it change the value?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:41:16 2020 No.12502498

>>12502473
>Thanks for admitting that everything you have previously insisted upon is impractical and in reality you use numbers all the time and recognize the physical necessity of their purpose.
Oh no, it's not impractical to not use numbers at all. There are very rare instances when I have to use a number for something. Maybe once a month or so. It really doesn't happen often. Trust me, once you get out of school and start making money, you'll stop counting down every penny in your bank account.
>You for one since you have been getting all angry and arguing about your worldview and how independent from numbers you think it is for quite some time.
I've been spitting truth and having fun with it. That you believe I am angry is maybe a sign of autism on your part.
>That is called a worldview, Eisenstein.
No it isn't. A worldview is like moral nihilism, material monism, etc etc etc.
>That is called uncertainty in your worldview and you should definitely admit to more of it if you want to convince me that your current worldview is more useful to me than my current worldview.
I have nothing to gain by convincing you, I merely want to extract entertainment value from you by telling the truth and watching you try to avoid admitting that everything you know is a lie and your teachers were all full of shit.
>It would be raining piss on you in that case and .99... = 1, no matter how much you don't want it to because its not how you see it.
0.99... =/= 1. Simple as. Every proof that attempts to show 0.99... = 1 is doomed to failure. There isn't any operation involved which would change 0.99...'s value to 1. You are assuming that the two are the same thing without any real justification.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:45:16 2020 No.12502508

>>12502497
"X is a symbol representing a number. It contains a single digit. If I write it down by hand, I need only one stroke of my pen."
"1 is a symbol representing a number. It contains a single digit. If I write it down by hand, I need only one stroke of my pen."
"0.99... is a symbol representing a number. It contains a single digit. If I write it down by hand, I need only one stroke of my pen."

Or how about...
"X can be written easily on a single piece of paper in its complete form, without any simplification involved."
"X contains an infinite sequence of 9's."
"I had a birthday party when I was X years old."

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:46:00 2020 No.12502512

>>12502498
there's plenty of justification for 0.99.. = 1, on the other hand, your only counteragument is that the symbols look different. by your logic, all of this is false:
1 = 3 - 2
1 = 4/4
1 = 1/2 + 1/2
1 = 2^0
1 = sin(pi/2)
1 = -e^(i*pi)
1 = lim n->inf 1/n

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:47:14 2020 No.12502515

>>12501809
There's certain underlying truths to the universe. Certain phenomena occur in repeatably deterministic fashion. We try to explain them as best we can. However, physically, apples COULD still fall from trees in this universe in the exact same way even if it had been the case that somhow mathematics itself was some God-scorned entity not allowed to exist. We just wouldn't have a good way to describe anything we see.

It's very easy to think that purely logical concepts like mathematics have to adhere to physical phenomena. This is, in fact, not the case. They are wholy seperate. You can construct valid algebras where the common operators behave nothing like you'd expect them to. Oftentimes, they won't be of much use if your objective is real world solutions. So, since it is physically the case that when you have one apple and you have another apple, you have two apples, everyone tends to define addition such that 1+1=2. You can construct algebras where 2+2=5, contrary to what >>12501777 says, we just don't because it's not useful.

I don't see you complaining about the fact that we define some bullshit called an imaginary unit with the bizarre property that it's square is negative unity, yet we can use it and concepts derived from the properties we ourselves gave it to obtain useful results for good ol' real-number integrals consistent with what we were already getting. Defining 0! = 1 is no different than defining i^2=-1. The operator needs not heed any preconceived notions you had about "how things actually work", like "squares are always positive because you always multiply by the same sign" or "the factorial is multiplying by every integer before it". It's exactly by shedding those preconceived notions that you're able to extend known concepts further, such as realizing that the factorial function being the integer case of the gamma function simplifies a lot of things and keeps shit less complicated while still consistent.

t. A very lowly geophysicist

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:48:20 2020 No.12502518 >>12502498 >There isn't any operation 0.9...+0=1

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:49:52 2020 No.12502519

>>12502512
>1 = 3 - 2
Contains a function between two numbers on one side which explains why the statements are numerically equivalent
>1 = 4/4
Contains a function between two numbers on one side which explains why the statements are numerically equivalent
>1 = 1/2 + 1/2
Contains a function between two numbers on one side which explains why the statements are numerically equivalent
>1 = 2^0
Contains a function between two numbers on one side which explains why the statements are numerically equivalent
>1 = sin(pi/2)
Contains a function between two numbers on one side which explains why the statements are numerically equivalent
>1 = -e^(i*pi)
Contains a function between two numbers on one side which explains why the statements are numerically equivalent
>1 = lim n->inf 1/n
Contains a function between two numbers on one side which explains why the statements are numerically equivalent
>0.99... = 1
Doesn't. You just believe it's true. You believe it as a base fact, without question.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:50:54 2020 No.12502521 >>12502518 0 is nothing. It's not even a number. It's a placeholder for "no value at all".

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:51:10 2020 No.12502522

>>12502498
>There are very rare instances when I have to use a number for something
Because you are privileged and everything you use like the computer you use to post or that drives your vehicle for you behind the scenes or the people who do your taxes and manage your trust fund use them on your behalf to manage your life for you.

>Maybe once a month or so
So is this that once a month, you had to bring once up this one time to point how many time you use it and how often (we will ignore all the numbers needed to define the months and just count this as one use of numbers, I guess) so you will not use another number for an entire month?

>A worldview is like moral nihilism
Nihilism isn't a personal worldview, it is a description of a type of organized philosophy.

>I merely want to extract entertainment value from you by telling the truth and watching you try to avoid admitting that everything you know is a lie
But you are the one who has admitted that I can't have faith in anything you said and your highest wisdom is that you are ignorance.

>You are assuming that the two are the same thing without any real justification.
No, you are assuming they are different without being able to show us any real difference.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:52:35 2020 No.12502526 >>12502521 >t. iq-100

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:53:57 2020 No.12502534 >>12502508 You didn't present a single mathematical statement and by that semantic logic, you would invalidate all equality.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:58:32 2020 No.12502552 >>12502519 why is "contains a function between two numbers on one side which explains why the statements are numerically equivalent " not the case for 0.999... = 1?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:58:43 2020 No.12502553 >>12502519 What do you think ... is if not a function representing an infinite series expansion?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 06:59:59 2020 No.12502557 >>12502521 0 represents a hole and a hole is not nothing, it is a hole, a void, an abyss, a vacuum, it is many things besides no value at all.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:00:02 2020 No.12502558

>>12502482
>Anonette Senior is the name of the mother of the person making this post
> My mom is the name of the mother of the person making this post
One's true, one's false. Whoops, guess my mom isn't herself anymore, by your logic. You're argument is that if you call something by two different names, then they can't be the same thing anymore. You're trying to shoddily attach the mathematical concept of logical equivalence to human language which is incredibly ill-defined and drawing bullshit conclusions from it. Rephrase your argument in formal language, go ahead, see what happens.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:00:18 2020 No.12502560

>>12502522
>Because you are privileged and everything you use like the computer you use to post or that drives your vehicle for you behind the scenes or the people who do your taxes and manage your trust fund use them on your behalf to manage your life for you.
Yes. I very much enjoy that privilege. And if I were born 2500 years ago, nobody would know any math and we'd all survive just fine and reproduce and do well enough to keep the species going. Same for 3000 years ago, 4000 years ago, etc etc etc. You were just unfortunate enough to be born into the short period in history where, for some reason, everyone you know was indoctrinated into believing that some arbitrary system of numeric logic represents objective truth. It's laughable.
>So is this that once a month, you had to bring once up this one time to point how many time you use it and how often (we will ignore all the numbers needed to define the months and just count this as one use of numbers, I guess) so you will not use another number for an entire month?
Yes, once I'm done with this thread I'll go back to not even thinking about numbers until I think I'll have some fun with it.
>Nihilism isn't a personal worldview, it is a description of a type of organized philosophy.
Well then I'm interested in what you mean by "worldview", since it doesn't coincide with what I mean at all.
I mean... go ahead and research your perceptive organs. They're not perfect. Any cognitive scientist worth a hoot can tell you that you don't "see reality", you see what your eyes interpret. That you think a system of logic made by imperfect humans with extremely limited perceptive capabilities over a thousand years ago is as close as we can possibly get to absolute objective truth is really kind of baffling to me.
>But you are the one who has admitted that I can't have faith in anything you said
Please don't have faith in what I or anyone else says, but judge things to be true or false in accordance with your own reason.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:02:50 2020 No.12502568

>>12502534
I don't believe mathematical statements are really worthwhile. I would much rather discuss the idea that is being put forward by the mathematical statement, since that is really what is interesting. Nobody cares that 1 + 1 = 2. Nobody. People do care that they can group together objects, which is what the statement actually says, what it's actually getting at.
If you can't read a mathematical statement in terms of what idea it's trying to express, do you really understand mathematics at all?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:02:53 2020 No.12502569 >>12502519 so you agree with 1 = [math]\sup \{ \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{9}{10^k} \mid n \in \mathbb{N} \}[/math] 1 = [math]\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{9}{10^k}[/math]

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:06:01 2020 No.12502578

>>12502560
>I very much enjoy that privilege
I can tell it has let you insulate yourself from reality because other people have to be burdened by the reality of your various numbers and metrics while you get to pretend they don't exist because you don't want them to and you don't have to do anything anyone else tells you.

>Well then I'm interested in what you mean by "worldview",
You know you could just use google or wikipedia, it has its own entry, but that might be beyond your own senses, so you wouldn't be able to make any sense of it anyway.

>Any cognitive scientist worth a hoot can tell you that you don't "see reality", you see what your eyes interpret
You were the one claiming to be an empiricist not me, this is devastating to your philosophical outlook not to mine, how do you resolve this error in your senses as an empiricist?.

I definitely don't have faith in what you say and I doubt you have much faith either, but it doesn't matter because .9...=1 either way.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:06:38 2020 No.12502580

>>12502558
>if you call something by two different names, then they can't be the same thing anymore.
Yes. Absolutely. They are two different things. Anonette senior is your mom's name in some contexts. "My mom" is your mom's name in other contexts. It would be impolite for you to confuse the two or use the two interchangeably, and that is enough reason for you to understand that merely having the same referent is not sufficient for using terms interchangeably. I could call your mom "that bitch" too, and it could be logically consistent, but I doubt there's a situation where she would appreciate it, so there's a real difference in utility between the terms you choose.
>You're trying to shoddily attach the mathematical concept of logical equivalence to human language which is incredibly ill-defined and drawing bullshit conclusions from it.
Mathematics is human language, and a very limited and poor one at that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:07:50 2020 No.12502584 >>12502568 >I don't believe mathematical statements are really worthwhile. Then I don't believe your opinions about mathematics are valid because I don't believe you can reasonably think it through given your dismissive attitude about mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:08:38 2020 No.12502587 >>12502580 >They are two different things The names are. The underlying entity is not. Same goes for numbers.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:09:17 2020 No.12502590 >>12502580 >Yes. Absolutely. They are two different things. >1 + 1 != 2

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:11:50 2020 No.12502596

>>12502578
>You know you could just use google or wikipedia, it has its own entry, but that might be beyond your own senses, so you wouldn't be able to make any sense of it anyway.
Tell me, do you honestly believe that the dictionary defines a word and that's the end of the discussion about its definition? Do you honestly believe that? Because that's ridiculous. The dictionary just references the most popular definitions of words, it doesn't even reference all of the definitions of the word which are in popular use. Look how long it took for "gay" to be defined as "homosexual" in the dictionary. Long time after people started using it that way. I've been speaking all of my life and every concept I've said in this thread today that you mathfags have problems understanding the vast majority of people I've met in real life understood implicitly, very quickly.
>You were the one claiming to be an empiricist not me, this is devastating to your philosophical outlook not to mine, how do you resolve this error in your senses as an empiricist?.
I don't claim to have an accurate representation of reality, just one that is useful to me. As an empiricist, I act in accordance with those things that appear useful to me. I don't assume they're "true".

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:15:20 2020 No.12502604

>>12502584
You don't have to love war to understand battlefield strategy, you know. You can reject war as disgusting and unnecessary and evil, and still understand strategy well. Do you disagree?
>>12502587
Yes. I said as much. I also said much more. Learn to read, not just solve equations! Don't neglect your mind! I will repeat: the different terms are useful in different contexts, and indeed are used in different ways, and have completely different implications. It is nonsense to claim that merely because they have the same referent, they are entirely interchangeable. I could refer to your mom exclusively as "that one dumbfuck hick" but I doubt that'd serve me. Still, the term would have the same referent as your mom's name.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:17:48 2020 No.12502610

>>12502596
>The dictionary just references the most popular definitions of words
Yea and the most popular definitions of worldview on google and wiki include much more than just a philosophy, so maybe you should at least open yourself up to some of the other popular possibilities instead of sticking to your guns and refusing any external definition that you didn't invent yourself or if you do stick to your guns at least try to come up with a reasonable explanation that isn't simply some contrarian subversion of all the popular explanations you read. Your problem isn't with things that are not defined, you have a problem with the way things are currently defined, but you can't insert a better alternative other than your own ignorance on the matter.

>just one that is useful to me
Yes and mathematicians have conspired for centuries to discover objective measurable explanations that are useful to their entire group, any reasonable onlookers, and to a much larger audience than just you and you alone.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:19:00 2020 No.12502613

>>12502604
>It is nonsense to claim that merely because they have the same referent, they are entirely interchangeable
In the field of mathematics, 0.999... and 1 are completely interchangeable. The only difference is one that doesn't exist in mathematics, one of name, because mathematics works solely on values. We're talking about mathematics here. What happens with respect to your pedantic interpretation of the English language is completely inconsequential.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:19:57 2020 No.12502618 >>12502534 >>12502552 >>12502553 >>12502569 I suppose these posts (i.e. posts about actual mathematics) will remain unanswered

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:20:21 2020 No.12502619 File: 27 KB, 720x669, 0vsnull.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>12502521 bless your heart

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:20:33 2020 No.12502621

>>12502604
You don't understand mathematics or mathematical stategies, though, because you are still extremely confused about why .9...=1 and you can't give mathematical statement about why it isn't only a bunch of unrelated semantics that are outside of the realm of mathematical analysis.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:21:34 2020 No.12502624 >>12502604 >Don't neglect your mind! If numbers don't exist because they are only in your mind, then your mind certainly doesn't exist either as it too must be imaginary and completely disconnected from reality by your standards.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:27:19 2020 No.12502646

>>12502610
>Your problem isn't with things that are not defined, you have a problem with the way things are currently defined, but you can't insert a better alternative other than your own ignorance on the matter.
Who says there is a good way to define things at all?
The way I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the definition of a word is a consequence of the use of that word. You could invent some words -- 4chan has done it before! -- and without it being recognized anywhere under any definition, you can still understand what people are saying. You may even use words which aren't recognized anywhere outside of this website and which will never have a formal definition written. You can use those words freely, without care, without focusing on the definitions others have put forward. And indeed! Your use of the word will impact how it is used, thus impacting how it is defined by others. Go ahead; start saying "plooft" instead of "okay", just replace the word with a nonsense word. People will catch on pretty quickly. It doesn't require much thought.
Maybe instead of trying to categorize and understand the world you can just accept it as it is: one big senseless mess that even the smartest people in history couldn't figure out. Face facts, you could study all day every day for the rest of your life and still have only a cursory understanding of a small number of topics relative to all of the information that's out there -- and of that cursory information, a good deal of it will turn out to not be true. Good luck catching up with the revisions of the textbooks! You can spend 50 years reading all of the science about a topic only to find that a year after your death some new discovery demonstrates that everything you read was objectively false. Why even fiddle with ideas like "If I study this particular thing I'll have access to absolute, objective truth"?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:32:23 2020 No.12502662

>>12502621
The semantic statements are the relevant ones. Why would I water down my statements and engage with something I'm not interested in just to adhere to some BS formal guidelines for what kind of argument you want to hear? Mathematics is only ever possibly relevant when applied to actual situations, and actual situations can ALWAYS be better described with words. Pure mathematics is pure bollocks. There is literally no reason to ever engage with pure mathematics when you have the option to talk about subjects using an actually useful language that can convey meaning.
>>12502624
Your mind exists. There's a bunch of electro-chemical signals floating around between your ears. That's what it is. Physically. It exists in localized space and time. It's a particular combination of matter.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:37:39 2020 No.12502682

>>12502646
>Who says there is a good way to define things at all?
A bunch of organization and pretty much everyone who can use a dictionary and learns about mathematics and doesn't discard math out of pocket as being imaginary, fake, and gay, like you.

>just replace the word with a nonsense word. People will catch on pretty quickly. It doesn't require much thought.
It will require semantic context to eventually make sense of it and if you introduce a new mathematical symbol, you not only have to obey all the numerical context, but also all the logical and reasonable context that developed as a result of quantification and all the mathematical and logical symbols that have been developed to support the mathematical language we have so far discovered.

>Maybe instead of trying to categorize and understand the world you can just accept it as it is: one big senseless mess that even the smartest people in history couldn't figure out.
You just categorized it as part of your acceptance that you can't categorize it, though, big, senseless mess is just as arbitrary and unprovable as any other semantic subjective qualitative label, but much less useful than quantitative and internally provable mathematical and logical operators that have been uncovered thus far in history.

If you think you have discovered a new mathematical symbol that can fit in with all the math symbols we have now, I would gladly hear about it, but you don't know anything about math and you barely reference actual math because you can't get over basic pleb filtering concepts like .9...=1.

>You can spend 50 years reading all of the science about a topic only to find that a year after your death
Your findings still would have contributed to that discovery and would still be important in understanding them.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:45:11 2020 No.12502697

>>12502682
Again, you’re mistaking the finger for the moon. I could easily propose using the б symbol to represent “an equation where one side is a whole number (ie 1) and the other side is a decimal with infinite digits (0.999...) used when the interchangeable use of the terms leads to irrational linguistic conclusions”, is that autistic enough to tickle your fancy? Or will you insist that no such irrational linguistic conclusions exist?
>your findings
Lmao you think that your shit is actually going to get widely read? Nah. Some folks will see your papers in a database and scroll past them. That’s what happens to most of us.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:47:07 2020 No.12502701

>>12502662
>The semantic statements are the relevant ones.
They are literally not that relevant and as you pointed out semantics are literally the easiest to change around over time because they are generally unnecessary and redundant.

>actual situations can ALWAYS be better described with words
Describe with words how position, speed, and acceleration relate in a way more simplified than mathematically showing the derivative chain.

>There's a bunch of electro-chemical signals floating around between your ears.
That is the brain, it isn't the mind, only your brain is physically real, your mind and inner monologue is imaginary.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:51:30 2020 No.12502707

>>12502701
>Describe with words how position, speed, and acceleration relate in a way more simplified than mathematically showing the derivative chain.
Go do some boxing. Better for you to experience it than understand it. More useful to you that way.
I probably would explain these things in much the same way as any schoolteacher explains it. By talking about what position is, what speed is, and what acceleration is. I don’t consider these things to be mathematics until numbers are applied, it’s still linguistic logic at this point.
> That is the brain, it isn't the mind, only your brain is physically real, your mind and inner monologue is imaginary.
Those are just events in the brain and arguably other parts of the body too.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:52:22 2020 No.12502711

>>12502697
>I could easily propose using the б symbol to represent
Good then you just proved that 5 actually exists because it can be renamed, but it would still have all the properties of 5, so whatever is being described 5 applies to something that is physically real with real properties that would just be given some other name if not 5.

>an equation where one side is a whole number (ie 1) and the other side is a decimal with infinite digits (0.999...)
Yea its just like Eulers 1 identity of -e^i*pi and they are all the same as 1, just with slightly different names.

>leads to irrational linguistic conclusions
Such as? You still haven't defined the mathematical statements where .9... and 1 are not interchangeable.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:55:40 2020 No.12502724

>>12502711
>Good then you just proved that 5 actually exists because it can be renamed
That’s not a 5, it’s Russian б
> Yea its just like Eulers 1 identity of -e^i*pi and they are all the same as 1, just with slightly different names.
Good, you found more uses for б
> Such as? You still haven't defined the mathematical statements where .9... and 1 are not interchangeable.
“ used when the interchangeable use of the terms leads to irrational linguistic conclusions””
Reading comprehension, guy.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 07:58:14 2020 No.12502732

>>12502707
You can't even feel speed without acceleration or explain it without quantitative reference, how are you suppose to experience it without a mathematical framework to draw upon?

Your semantics have already failed.

>By talking about what position is, what speed is, and what acceleration is
How is that less complicated than the formulas? Just you explaining that you need to explain takes up more space than presenting the formulas that real teachers use.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:00:51 2020 No.12502741

>>12502724
>That’s not a 5, it’s Russian б
You can translate it to that as long as you recognize the thing I call 5 and the thing you call russian 6 actually exists and it would be more convenient to just call it 5 like everyone else so you don't have to do this unnecessary translation step for your own personal symbol of 5.

> used when the interchangeable
That isn't a mathematical statement, it is a semantic statement about mathematics.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:03:47 2020 No.12502751 N! is the number of ways of ordering n objects. There is one way of ordering zero elements, namely the empty set

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:06:15 2020 No.12502758

>>12502732
>how are you suppose to experience it without a mathematical framework to draw upon?
Easy.
You ever been punched in the face?
You’ll get a good idea of what these words refer to even if you don’t know what the words are, even if you know literally nothing else other than being punched in the face. The concepts will be burned into your body, into your muscle memory, and you’ll probably see more benefit from that kind of experiential understanding than with any explanation. So there’s no reason at all to take up time teaching you about it, you’ll learn quickly just by getting punched enough. I mean really. You have kids? Do you explain to them exactly how the stove works, down to the last mechanical piece? Or do they figure it out by watching, doing, and getting burned?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:07:45 2020 No.12502764 >>12502751 Zero things doesn't have any order, though, there isn't anything to count or order 0 objects. Which comes first, zero, nil, or null? Nonsense, there is no order to those things, they are all just nothing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:08:31 2020 No.12502766 >>12502741 Math is just another language, I’m not sure why you think semantics magically don’t apply here or why you think logic with numbers is superior or whatever strange, thought-limiting way you’re looking at this.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:08:47 2020 No.12502769 >>12502758 >You ever been punched in the face? You need acceleration to feel a punch, the fist will stop or slow down at some point or you wouldn't feel it contacting your nerves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:09:47 2020 No.12502773 >>12502758 I don't take advice from someone who is always getting punched in the face and burning their kids on the stove

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:16:25 2020 No.12502787

>>12502769
Obviously the answer is no, you’ve not been punched in the face, and you have very little actual experiential understanding of anything at all.
>>12502773
And that’s why your kids will have avoidant personality disorder, because you smother them and don’t allow them to learn by interacting with the world. You’ll be labeled a helicopter parent and your kids will abandon you in your old age. You need to let people learn. Through real experience. I don’t care how many car manuals you’ve read, I’ll still trust an experienced driver over your inexperienced ass sitting behind the wheel.

>>	El Arcón Thu Dec 24 08:18:54 2020 No.12502791 0! is usually motivated as 3! = 4! / 4 2! = 3! / 3 1! = 2! / 2 0! = 1! /1

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 08:20:25 2020 No.12502793 >>12502787 Neither do you trustfund baby. Nice, Dr. Dipshit has discovered the cause of something medical science can't currently cure and doesn't understand you should get a nobel, its the highest honor someone who doesn't understand math can get.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 09:36:50 2020 No.12502923 >>12502618 ...yep

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 10:15:55 2020 No.12503011 >>12502619 The cardboard tube isn't exactly 0. You can still shave off thinner layers and put them to work for at least one more run. Not exactly septic tank safe tho.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 11:12:09 2020 No.12503132 >>12503011 leave your home life out of this thread

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 11:24:47 2020 No.12503166 >>12501764 Nor is your new inside out turned penis

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 11:39:39 2020 No.12503203 >>12501870 Cringe. You are a faggot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 12:44:26 2020 No.12503389 >>12503132 can't do that when it pertains to science and/or math

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 12:48:30 2020 No.12503399 >>12501892 >Anything beyond elementary number systems are bad! >Uses infinitesimals.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 12:56:03 2020 No.12503422 x=0.999... 10x=9.9999.... 9x=10x-x=9.9999....-0.9999..... 9x=9 x=1 QED

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:02:29 2020 No.12503446 >>12501777 >posts image of plato >says numbers are real ????

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:12:06 2020 No.12503492 >>12501764 How Can Our Posts Be Real If Numbers Aren't Real.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:12:43 2020 No.12503494 >>12502179 imagine being retarded. you have the defintion. n*(n-1) then you go back on it to I CHANGE DEFINTION TO SOMETHING ELSE. by definition 0! = 1. cry all day long but that's the definition of a factorial.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:14:41 2020 No.12503504 >>12503446 >‘platonism’ is inspired by Plato’s famous theory of abstract and eternal Forms

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:27:55 2020 No.12503539 >xy = y + y + ... + y x-times >the definition of multiplication should tell you that's xy should not be defined unless x is a natural number

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:34:43 2020 No.12503555

>>12501779
>1+1=/=2
>2*3=/=6
>sqrt(9)=/=3
>sin(0)=/=0
Didn't we just established in the other thread you're not smart enough for math?

>>12501761
It's defined that way because it's convenient. The "reasoning" behind it is that the numbers of 1-to-1 functions from the empty set onto itself is 1. This, of course, doesn't make sense when you extend the factorial beyond the naturals. However, every single function is defined in an way just as arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:39:03 2020 No.12503565 >>12503555 we have already estabilished that 0.999... = 1 is an exception, see >>12502519, but we're still waiting for explanation

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:40:17 2020 No.12503568 >>12501817 Sounds like your dick

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:44:47 2020 No.12503577 why does this dumb nigger act like there's no mathematical proof of 0.9.. = 1?

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 13:46:45 2020 No.12503580

>>12503565
>we're still waiting for explanation
>>12502618
You got 4 that you didn't reply to because you didn't understand them. Here's one more because I'm feeling christmassy.
>>12503261
Again, it seems the answer here is that you're just not smart enough for math.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:06:14 2020 No.12503761 >>12501776 > (-1)! = 0!/0

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:21:28 2020 No.12503828 >>12503577 He thinks a mathematical proof statement is when you use a bunch of nonsense semantics to prove to yourself that math is arbitrary because it depends on the handwriting of the mathematician. >>12502508

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:24:18 2020 No.12503845 File: 15 KB, 742x298, factorial.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:28:32 2020 No.12503865 >>12501809 Dude, the only reason mathematicians have DEFINED 0! := 1 is just to make formulae look nicer, e.g. taylor series

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:29:40 2020 No.12503869 >>12501761 Dumbfuck American.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:30:40 2020 No.12503872 >>12503845 yeah, factorial is defined for all complex numbers except negative integers. I don't know what's the problem.

Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:33:18 2020 No.12503878

>>12503872
No, I was just testing to see how people would respond to me posting that image with no context. I didn't say it was a problem, I just wanted to see if the default response would be to assume I had a problem with it.

Anyways... yes, you are right.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 15:46:55 2020 No.12503912 >>12503872 Well there is one problem they forgot to mention some of the omitted digits from the complex number. In fact, they did not indicate that they truncated the complex factorial of i in that image, so that is one problem with it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 24 17:31:51 2020 No.12504294 >>12501761 There's only one way to arrange zero things.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 01:47:08 2020 No.12505559 >>12504294 There is zero order to zero things, you can't put nothing first or last, nothing can only be put nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 02:32:38 2020 No.12505664 >>12503872 >except negative integers. It's perfectly well defined

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 25 07:59:26 2020 No.12506246 >>12503865 >nothing is something because I say so because they said so

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math