[ 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: 39 KB, 466x273, Axiome_du_choix.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15107126 No.15107126 [Reply] [Original]

Do people actually accept the axiom of choice? I thought it was just a joke, but you're telling me there are midwits out there who really believe this stuff?

>> No.15107137
File: 38 KB, 400x300, 1639587194762.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15107137

>>15107126
Halt! State your favorite axiomatic system or get lost!

>> No.15107142

>>15107126
Not like you could come up with a reasonable rebuttal that doesn't devolve into Wildbergian vague babble anyhow. Go on and ask why modern set theorists don't regard AC as controversial anymore on, say, StackExchange, I'm sure you'll get a ton of answers, provided you actually care about the topic as opposed to shitposting about it like the snarky undergrad you are.

>> No.15107144

>>15107137
>>15107142
ZF+Axiom of determinancy. Get over it.

>> No.15107197

>>15107142
You're right, I can't -- but he can
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOW23uVcRA

(Also I am not OP. OP doesn't strike me as someone whose education reaches about Sneedeberger vids)

>> No.15107242
File: 8 KB, 247x204, 1569376991298.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15107242

>>15107197
>Sneedeberger

>> No.15107269

>>15107126
wow just wow, are you really calling bertrand russell a midwit?

>> No.15107330

>>15107197
This sounds like snake oil and foreigners that hate the Anglosphere and the West. They sound like hostile attack spies that should be killed.
The fact that you spell "the" wrong is a dead giveaway.
I want to murder this guy. He's a spy, and he should be murdered.

>> No.15107334

>>15107197
This is a psychopathic spy that is trying to subvert the West, and he should be murdered. He's obviously nervous about what he's doing, and he should be murdered.
Murdering spies like this is important for collapsing Russia and murdering enemies of the West inside and outside Russia.

>> No.15107340 [DELETED] 

>>15107197
I suggest conspiring to murder Russian students over this video.
Send Putin the severed heads of Russian students.
Turn the colleges and universities into killing fields, places of genocide targeting the Russian diaspora.

>> No.15107346 [DELETED] 

>>15107197
This is about psychopaths that hate the West and want to subvert the West, and they should be murdered by terrorist groups backed by Western governments
The Russian people need to be murdered for their insolence.

>> No.15107352 [DELETED] 

>>15107197
Murdering the Russian people and HUMILIATING the Russian people on the world stage should be a PRIORITY for the West!
These are psychos that should be murdered!
It's that simple.
They were sent by psychos in Putin's government to attack the West, and they are insane monsters that should be murdered.

>> No.15107512

>>15107126
Anon, why are you not pro choice?

>> No.15108448
File: 51 KB, 694x474, russ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15108448

>>15107269
russel was a genius

>> No.15108578

>>15107126
Depending on your philosophical views, it can be a very natural thing to believe, especially with all the low consistency strength axioms that imply it or weaker versions of it. Just because it contradicts the existence of some large axioms and retarded game theory principles taken to absurd extremes doesn't mean it's unreasonable.

>> No.15108579

>>15108578
*large cardinal axioms

>> No.15108583

>>15108448
I'm starting to believe that website was explicitly designed to attract midwits

>> No.15108591

>>15107142
/thread

>> No.15108595

>>15107142
>controversial

>>15107126
>believe

How exactly would you determine whether this is "true"?

>>15108578
What do you mean "unreasonable", what exactly would support whether it is true or not? What do you mean by "natural" and why would that suggest it's true?

>> No.15108605

>>15108595
>What do you mean by "natural" and why would that suggest it's true?
I didn't say anything about it's truth value, Mr Formalist. Kay why ess.

>> No.15108606

>>15108605
What do you mean by "unreasonable" then?

>> No.15108608

>the axiom of choice says that given any collection of sets, each containing at least one element, it is possible to construct a new set by arbitrarily choosing one element from each set, even if the collection is infinite
>Even if the collection is infinite
Hold up. So for an infinite set S, I can arbitrarily say that for every element n, my goal is to pick out the element n + 1. Arbitrarily, even for n -> infinity. So what's the number I'm picking out? Infinity is a number?

>> No.15108609
File: 52 KB, 696x475, michio.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15108609

>>15108583
this one of a random paragraph of Michio Kaku talking looks about right, from here...
https://tim.blog/2022/01/08/michio-kaku-transcript

>> No.15108614
File: 70 KB, 817x510, gifted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15108614

>>15108609
...and then one from my own personal writings as a comparison

>> No.15108619

>>15108606
Something unintuitive with unintuitive implications and/or a high consistency strength.

>> No.15108627

>>15108619
Any special reason you care if it's "unintuitive"? It still exists as a concept even if you don't use it. You're still describing what it is, and you can tell its implications, even if you say that it is "false"/you are not using it.
Also, I don't get exactly the significance or meaning of "consistency strength".

>> No.15108640

>>15108627
>Any special reason you care if it's "unintuitive"? It still exists as a concept even if you don't use it.
Shut the fuck up
>Also, I don't get exactly the significance or meaning of "consistency strength".
If the consistency of P implies the consistency of Q, but not vice versa, we say P has a higher consistency strength than Q. In general we try to avoid relying on statements that might be inconsistent.

>> No.15108682

>>15108640
>Shut the fuck up
It's true.

>> No.15108705

>>15108614
Lmao

>> No.15109274

>>15107137
>Halt! State your favorite axiomatic system or get lost!
Anything that doesn't include the axiom of foundation

>> No.15109297

>>15107142
https://risingentropy.com/axiom-of-choice-and-hats/
>inb4 not a rebuttal math is abstract yada yada
set theory has rotten your brain, congratulations

>> No.15109320
File: 2.97 MB, 1920x1080, 1669989001823379.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15109320

>>15107126
since most numbers are not computable, it seems like assuming you have an algorithm that can select members from an arbitrary set is a pretty big assumption to make.
that being said, a lot of math can gloss over this detail and be useful because this is trivial for many problem of practical interest. but i suspect an even larger chunk of math can't gloss over this.

>> No.15109323

>>15107137
they are all equally as bad
hopefully i live to see a good one

>> No.15111336

>>15107334
>>15107330
Glow like the sun