/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12514476]

>real numbers

[Anonymous No.12514500]

>>12514476
>Dedekind cuts

[Anonymous No.12514658]

>>12514476
so what's the sqrt(2) OP?

uh oh. looks like you're stuck

[Anonymous No.12514663]

>>12514658
so what's 1/0 anon?

uh oh. looks like you're stuck.

[Anonymous No.12514679]

>assume no common factors

[Anonymous No.12514688]

>>12514658
sqrt(2)={}

[Anonymous No.12514695]

[Anonymous No.12514703]

>>12514658
a number provably within 1 and 2.
prove there are gaps in rationals.
do it yourself, otherwise you're just accepting a claim without understanding it.

[Anonymous No.12514733]

>>12514703
>prove there are gaps in rationals.
literally first week of an undergrad intro to proofs class

[Anonymous No.12514764]

>>12514703
If you don't actually do math maybe its best you don't have an opinion about it. That statement alone tells me you are not ready for any kind of serious discussion,

[Anonymous No.12514770]

>>12514703
whatever you do, dont look up the Vsauce video where he walks you through it

[Anonymous No.12514785]

>>12514703
Literally first proof on Baby Rudin

[Anonymous No.12514792]

>>12514703
a post so obviously true and based that nobody is accepting it

[Anonymous No.12514840]

>>12514703
>provably within 1 and 2
didn't find it on my computer

[Anonymous No.12514905]

Is there an alternative to rationals as the next step from integers?

[Anonymous No.12514983]

>>12514905
p-adic integers

[Anonymous No.12515005]

>>12514733
>>12514764
>>12514785
>t. can't
yikes
>>12514770
ok
>>12514792
they fear exposing thier schizophrenia is words.
they are conscious about the criticism they'll face.
so they cope and deflect.

[Anonymous No.12515015]

>>12514658
1.41421356237

[Anonymous No.12515021]

>>12514476
>constructivism

[Anonymous No.12515171]

>>12514905
p-adics

[Anonymous No.12515184]

>>12514905
>>12515171

You can even construct an anolog of the real numbers called the p-adic numbers and redo calculus with them.

[Anonymous No.12515191]

>>12515184
You can even take the algebraic closure of the p-adic numbers and you end up with... The complex numbers! So all roads lead to C eventually.

You should also note that the cardinality of just the p-adic integers (Rationals alternative) is the same as the Real numbers so if you don't like real numbers you are not going to like p-adics.

[El Arcón No.12515195]

>[math]\mathbb{R}=(-\infty,\infty)[/math]
nuh-uh schizo
vague and meaningless
look at baby Putin
>[math]\mathbb{R}=(-\infty,\infty)[/math]
>into the trash
Euclid? Um, no sweetie.

[Anonymous No.12516011]

>>12514658
Hypothenouse of triangle with sides of 1.

It's possible only in 2 dimensional space.

[Anonymous No.12516098]

>euclidean geometry

[Anonymous No.12516106]

>>12515191
>>12515184
>>12515171
>>12514695
>>12514476
you people are the vegans of mathematics

[Anonymous No.12517478]

>>12515195
Looking at the statements of the propositions without reading the proofs does not count as reading Euclid.

[Anonymous No.12517597]

Should I study the schizo classical mafs to better now what's possible/definable in constructive maths? Such as when a statement can be proved nonconstructive or independent?

[Anonymous No.12517602]

>>12514476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmpAntNjPj0

[Anonymous No.12517726]

>integers

[El Arcón No.12518117]

>>12517478
Writing a sentence is different than making a point.