[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 8 KB, 429x392, real.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14618571 No.14618571 [Reply] [Original]

In this thread we will appreciate the uncountably infinite set of real numbers, formalized not more than roughly 200 years ago while informally used for centuries and still holding strong to this date. Real numbers have revolutionized early calculus, are the fundament of modern analysis and are involved in nearly all areas of mathematics.

>> No.14618574

nested intervals is best construction

>> No.14618576

>>14618571
/autism/ general

>> No.14618600
File: 26 KB, 800x700, 2101 - Kicchou_Yachie angry wily_beast_and_weakest_creature.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14618600

This is now a real number DISSAPRECIAITON thread.
Post why you HATE real "numbers".

>> No.14618621

>>14618571
>formalized not more than roughly 200 years ago
And formalized in such a weak way that some of the simplest questions about subsets of the reals proved independent of the formalization.

>> No.14618690

>>14618576
>>14618600
>>14618621
YWNBAR Mathematician

>> No.14618817

What is the first real number after 0?

>> No.14618820

>>14618817
1 obviously you fucking retard

>> No.14618821

+RAPE DICK+

>> No.14618842

>>14618820
Decimals are real numbers.

So: .28488383
.2333333348383
.222224848848484
.2111111111115122222222
.200000000000002
.19383838838383
.0003838838383
.00000000000093883838

So what is the first real number after 0?

>> No.14618844

>>14618817
in what way does this 'deboonk' real numbers? if something does not match YOUR intuition or expectations, it does not mean it's logically unsound

>> No.14618857

>>14618842
The infinitesimal

>> No.14618862

>>14618842
to have a first decimal after 0, the decimal numbers would need to have a smallest size difference. whole numbers have a smallest size difference of 1 but decimal numbers don't have anything like this.

>> No.14618868

>>14618842
Decimals dont exist. Reality is binary. You either have 1 or 0

>> No.14618881

>>14618690
you will never be a real number

>> No.14618882

>>14618820
REAL NUMBERS CONFIRMED INTEGERS

>> No.14618887

>>14618857
infinitesimals aren't in R

>> No.14618898

>>14618882
obviously. decimals are jewish horseshit. integers are aryan.

>> No.14618939

>>14618898
negative numbers are the invention of the jew to facilitate debts and lending money

>> No.14618995
File: 91 KB, 750x1000, 1612027575132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14618995

>>14618817
Thanks to the power of choice, I can pick it to be [math]e^\pi[/math] and *still* have a total order. Icing on the cake, it's even decidable!

How can you even not be pro-choice?

>> No.14619095

>>14618817
I did some research on this topic earlier today and found the very cool result of induction on the positive reals being a thing https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4202/induction-on-real-numbers

>> No.14619112

>>14618571
Give me pi/sqrt(2) apples. I'll wait

>> No.14619127

>>14619112
>gives anon two apples and a piece of a third
prove i didn't

>> No.14619173

>>14618817
What is the first rational number after 0?

>> No.14619226

>>14619173
1 - 0.999... where "..." is the diesel engine

>> No.14620860

>>14618868
>Decimals dont exist. Reality is binary. You either have 1 or 0
So like a 4d single pixel orthoganal quadrant space

>> No.14620891

>>14620860
A space of massive 4d volume full of 99999999999999999999999^99999999999999999999999999999999 pixels, and energy is a style of quantity and quality that passes between and on and through the pixels, or just between them, or just registers each one

Times that result that amount of times.

>> No.14620986
File: 943 KB, 1x1, TIMESAND___21110072v1.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14620986

>>14618571
Euclid formalized R a lot more than 200 years ago. R was given an algebraic definition about 200 years, however.

>> No.14620990

>>14618887
Where are they then? If you're so big brained tell me where they are?

>> No.14620994
File: 41 KB, 896x617, TIMESAND___s71sv59v2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14620994

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Real_numbers_1/

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/HistTopics/Real_numbers_2/

>> No.14621125

>>14618820
Well, it’s the first surreal after 0

>> No.14621149
File: 220 KB, 711x568, 1656794244788.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14621149

I prefer the p-adics. Surreal numbers are cool, too.

>> No.14621150

>>14618817
1 - 0.999....

>> No.14621158

>>14620986
based tooker poster

>> No.14621690

>>14618576
we are schizos here

>> No.14621833

>>14618571
Reminder that the uncountable reals are undefinable in finite terms and are unnecessary for the reals to be complete. We will never interact with them in any way. The reals are countable

>> No.14623258

My stance on reals is that they mathematically do not exist, they are pure notation convention. Literally as math as the "R" used to denote them, or any letters.
I think just computable numbers (sadly, C is already taken, so I denote them with CUNT instead) exist.
Fortunately, there has not been a single instance in human history where there was a discrepancy between these two things. Crucially, this includes reals-demanding things like limits and transcendentals.
My definition really acts just as a sieve that says "almost all numbers in R which are usually said 'you can't know nuffin' about, simply don't exist. If there is made an attempt to approach one, it exists, as it is currently computed. It's not like it stops existing when the computation is ceased; rather, it just returns to a primordial state of indeterminateness. Kinda like how your consciousness was when you were just an embryo."

>> No.14623378

>>14623258
>unironically talking about "existence" of numbers in an ontological sense
Infantile language games without meaning. Wittgenstein already solved ontology.

>> No.14623668

>>14623258
They exist in an abstract platonic realm like all mathematical structures

>> No.14623674

>>14623668
t. dekomori

>> No.14623877

Reals are countable. seethe

>> No.14624962

>>14618600
Because they are the ugliest object in mathematics

>> No.14624970

>>14618995
idgi why is it a portrait of Godel? because of his L?

>> No.14624980

OP is being silly.
It is the theory of real numbers that is used in analysis etc.
The set of real numbers is only ancillary and rarely applied for anything.