bitches

[Anonymous No.5648265]

finitist fag here

I'm drunk, not doing well at go

ask me anything infinity-loving assholes

captcha: finatem federation

[Anonymous No.5648273]

>>5648265
You look like that girl from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.5648276]

>>5648273
it is her, I think she's beautiful, had to choose some bitch I got pics of, last time I posted a chick I got banned because panties or some shit (random ban last weekend)

[Anonymous No.5648279]

why does the Euler's Method approximation for the system $y' = A y $ diverge even when all eigenvalues are negative, if $h*\mid \lambda \mid > 2$

[Anonymous No.5648280]

>>5648279
what does that have to do with finitism, I'm interested in your perspective before I answer

[Mutemattics !!58hTUK7XbfZ No.5648283]

>identifying yourself with a title
Why would you cancer yourself like that?

Not really in mood for writing text walls, so imagine a huuuge paragraph with the following words repeating throughout it many times:
Arbitrary, belief, philosophy, >>>/lgbt/, plebe, >reality, semantics

[Anonymous No.5648287]

Do you have proof that the four fundamental forces can be destroyed naturally without the ability for it to be recreated?

[Anonymous No.5648292]

>>5648283
That's some stinky bait. Next time get a trip related to your name.

>>5648287
Nope.

[Anonymous No.5648294]

ps any fags want to play some go with a drunk 1k on kgs pm pwnnuki

[Anonymous No.5648295]

>>5648292
>>5648287
Then you have no reason to believe in finitism .
Next!

[Anonymous No.5648298]

>>5648295
I am buttdevestated!

[Anonymous No.5648308]

>>5648298
Don't be so daft after every sip of the nourishing alcohol. Whiskey is drowning me right now. I can at least still think.
Nice picture.

[Anonymous No.5648310]

>>5648308
rollin' on rum right now. I try not to be retarded but it gets harder every year.

[Anonymous No.5648321]

>>5648310
Haha, every year that we lose attention to the school books is replaced through under appreciated new skills. This is hardly a place for us.

[Mutemattics !!58hTUK7XbfZ No.5648320]

>>5648310
>>5648298
she's ok, 6/10

The more important question is, why do you support finitism?
Any concrete reason?
I mean surely since you cuddle the concept so badly you must have a strong case, right? RIGHT?

[Anonymous No.5648325]

>>5648265
You have a dice, on this dice there is a side, on this side there is an angular dip, in this angular dip there all are the numbers of the di

Fuck your thermodynamics

[Anonymous No.5648329]

>>5648325
btw you can go ahead and write your paper on that

[Anonymous No.5648332]

>>5648325

[Anonymous No.5648340]

>>5648320
> a strong case
I don't think the burden is mine for a "strong case." I mean---I think my case is strong, but I think the burden is not mine. My "opponents" (I use the word loosely, please understand) cannot produce a single real number of the sort they promise exists. They can't produce well-orderings they promise exists. Almost all reals are not computable, not definable, and not nameable. But they assure me they exist.

What exists? ---no answer. There can be no answer, by their own admission. If I seek an answer (a limit) it will magically appear... but that is not the same thing as populating the real line, is it?

Do I really have to justify finitism? You have, plainly, finite fingers, finite money, finite shelter, finite time. The burden is not mine.

[Anonymous No.5648338]

>>5648321
>>5648310
Confused, I assumed you didn't drink so much to not be able to send an email!

[Anonymous No.5648343]

Space-time is completely continuous and smooth, with no discrete units. You need the continuum real line to describe particles. Black holes have singularities with infinite densities. Quantum particles take an infinite number of paths simultaneously. You need an infinite number of steps to do non-perturbative quantum field theory. Renormalization in physics subtracts infinities. You mad?

[Anonymous No.5648346]

>>5648345
> shitposting general
it's like I'm really on /v/

[Anonymous No.5648345]

>>5648340
Math is not science.
Examples are not necessary in the presence of proof.
gb2 physics department.

[Anonymous No.5648347]

>>5648346
Oh shit, you can tell?
I really need to stop going there...

[Anonymous No.5648349]

>>5648346
It doesn't reflect well on me either...

[Anonymous No.5648350]

>>5648340
Why don't you come up with the burden of proof? Finding a waiver in logic is not superiority.

[Anonymous No.5648352]

>>5648350
Oh, shit, I left the burden of proof in one of my infinite pair of pants!

hold on a sec, the axiom of choice will find it for me

[Anonymous No.5648360]

>>5648340
K, non-deffinative=being an infinative
This is precisely the reason electrons are hypothesized to be able to hold infos, you just said a bunch of those

Finite fingers? Not at all the cells replace the selves every decade or so, money? ayfkm?

Now, there may be finite hot ass, but that's only because we could go into a nuclear holocaust at any moment, india was about a year or so ago, n korea these days is a wreck, and you! Are not helping the situation!

OP >>5648343

[Anonymous No.5648367]

I don't understand how anyone could deny the existence of something as beautiful as fractals or the Cantor set.

[Anonymous No.5648366]

>>5648265
Define "infinity".
Choose even one particular context to define it in.

If you can assert that it doesn't exist you certainly must know what it is.

[Anonymous No.5648368]

>>5648352
>choice is finding a needle in a haystack planet

[Anonymous No.5648370]

>>5648343
> space-time is completely continuous and smooth
then why do all my rulers always yield rational numbers?

> you need the continuum real line to describe particles
No, you don't. Because every proof of theory involves measurement and calculation. The continuum is composed of incalcuable and immeasurable. Your requirements are your failings.

[Anonymous No.5648371]

>>5648368
that set exists prove it doesn't!

[Anonymous No.5648374]

>>5648370
Your rulers are inaccurate.
Do you not remember that from every science class ever that included an experiment?

[Anonymous No.5648373]

Why did you become a finitist?

[Anonymous No.5648377]

>>5648370
>then why do all my rulers always yield rational numbers?
Because there's no perfect ruler.

>No, you don't. Because every proof of theory involves measurement and calculation. The continuum is composed of incalcuable and immeasurable. Your requirements are your failings.
A particle is here, oh look, now it's there. It moved continuously. No jumps.

[Anonymous No.5648378]

>>5648343
>space time is continuous
>wat is Planck length?

[Anonymous No.5648379]

>>5648378
You're either uneducated or underaged.

[Anonymous No.5648382]

>>5648379
>Le happy merchant

[Anonymous No.5648381]

>>5648377
To be fair, you can't actually say there are no jumps just because you can't see any.
You can't measure beneath a certain length either so you have no reason to conclude that anything beneath is continuous or discrete.

[Anonymous No.5648383]

So what's the case for finitism? Why would you subscribe to it? Why not just solve problems and come up with new theorems and shit.

[Anonymous No.5648386]

>>5648383
Edginess.

[Anonymous No.5648385]

>>5648371
As soon as that set exists its as easily said that its a haystack solarsystem, and with you're luck you'd probably go in through the snake gate and just get wrapped up, or by, something comepletely different

tl;dr 0.0..01 never comes kiddo

[Anonymous No.5648387]

>>5648381
Jumps, discontinuities, and discreteness all produce measurable effects. For one they break the Lorentz and gauge symmetries, which require smooth and continuous space.

[Anonymous No.5648395]

>>5648387
Those are self asserting in the way that they say anything has the potential to be right next to anything else

It's just there are relativities keeping them in check

[Anonymous No.5648404]

>>5648395
>Those are self asserting
No, they are backed by rigorous experiments.

>anything has the potential to be right next to anything else
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.5648406]

>>5648404
Im not talking about an atom there... way less than that

[Anonymous No.5648407]

>>5648406
Way less than what? Give me a scale.

[Anonymous No.5648408]

>>5648407
If an atom is the size of a mansion a quark is the size of a newborn mouse

[Anonymous No.5648410]

>>5648408
Okay. So how do you feel that space was measured to be continuous 100 times shorter than the Planck length?

[Anonymous No.5648414]

>>5648265
Anyway, here's how you defend 'Finitism'
... if you took this to pole they'd think you a castrating femizazi but w/e

All systems exist within a system, compared to that system they are finite. This is only untrue when systems are bound to eachother at which point making an external system, at which point the external, or 'maintaining' sytem finite and the internal infinite- giving the 'lowest' operating system all realms of confine, which are finite; as only made by the systems compiling them

[Anonymous No.5648419]

>>5648377
> because there's no perfect ruler
That's a cop-out answer. The perfect ruler is the so-called construction of the reals. Except that that ruler can't be provided.

The fact that it can't be provided is not the fault of the finitist. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is clever, but not clever enough.

>>5648383
Do you think finitism needs a case? Why, exactly? (Well, as exactly as 4chan allows.).
> why not just solve problems and come up with new theorems and shit
I don't have a problem with theorems. I have a problem with the semantics involved with infinity.
>>5648385
> tldr 0.000.... 1 doesn't come kiddo
No doubt. But the fault is yours: without finitism, the "..." is not well-defined.

> to all
the rest are not responses to me unless I missed one. PS - jihadwatcher is seriously 10/10 to me, I am fucking pathetic

[Anonymous No.5648425]

>>5648410
Do you know how big an atom is?

They're huge, like ridiculously huge

They're quite a bit bigger than a plank

[Anonymous No.5648426]

>>5648419
>That's a cop-out answer. The perfect ruler is the so-called construction of the reals. Except that that ruler can't be provided. The fact that it can't be provided is not the fault of the finitist. Attempting to shift the burden of proof is clever, but not clever enough.
Clever way to define ruler. More appropriately, humans can't create a perfect ruler. That's the fault of the humans. Mathematics and nature don't have to stop at the limitations of the human mind.

[Anonymous No.5648430]

>>5648425
I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point.

[Anonymous No.5648432]

>>5648426
> humans can't create a perfect ruler
How do you know, unless you have a good enough ruler?

> mathematics and nature don't have to stop at the limitations of the human mind
Indeed! Indeed I hope they do not. That would be very disappointing. But my desires have never compelled the rest of reality to comply; why should they in this case?

[Anonymous No.5648447]

>>5648432
>>5648432
>How do you know, unless you have a good enough ruler?
Because if spacetime were to not be continuous it would require an infinite amount of fine tuning in a fundamentally "discrete" theory to match the experimental results. You just shift the infinity somewhere else.

>But my desires have never compelled the rest of reality to comply; why should they in this case?
Dogmatic desires are irrational.

[Anonymous No.5648451]

So wait hold up, would you argue against the existence of R? N?

[Anonymous No.5648470]

>>5648451
> against R
definitely
> N
the axiom of infinity is quite questionable

[Anonymous No.5648468]

>>5648447
> Because if spacetime were to not be continuous it would require an infinite amount of fine tuning in a fundamentally "discrete" theory to match the experimental results.
Name one experimental result... one!... which demands infinite precision.

> dogmatic desires are irrational
I agree. I'd give anything to accept the reality of the continuum. But no one seems able to make the case for their uncountable infinity. All powersets of finite sets are 2^size? But alas, the continuum hypothesis... can't even be settles with the axiom of choice, itself already a reach extrapolating from finite to the infinite.

No, dogmatic desires should be avoided at all costs.

[Anonymous No.5648472]

>>5648426
> More appropriately, humans can't create a perfect ruler. That's the fault of the humans. Mathematics and nature don't have to stop at the limitations of the human mind.
But I have not denied this. It would be preposterous. To deny it is to assert there's nothing more to know. I would never.

[Anonymous No.5648476]

>>5648472
>But I have not denied this
Yes you are. You're denying infinity and choice.

[Anonymous No.5648475]

>>5648468
>Name one experimental result... one!... which demands infinite precision.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1832

>But no one seems able to make the case for their uncountable infinity.
It's useful for physics and engineering problems.

>axiom of choice
...which quantum mechanics requires for self-adjoint operators to be meaningful as observables.

[Anonymous No.5648494]

>>5648476
nothing, so far, requires them. I am not immune to evidence. But none is forthcoming.

Here is a trivial challenge, which you should be able to muster up with probability one:

name one uncomputable, unnameable, undefinable real number. There's an uncountable number of them, so it shouldn't be hard...

[Anonymous No.5648505]

>>5648494
>nothing, so far, requires them. I am not immune to evidence. But none is forthcoming.
All evidence points to the existence of a continuous space and the validity of quantum mechanics. The set of "real" reals is used in physics. Invisible demons can be dismissed.

>uncomputable
Chaitin's constant. The supremum of the Specker sequence.

>unnameable, undefinable real number
lol

[Anonymous No.5648508]

>>5648273
sci visit pol now...

I was right to leave.

[Anonymous No.5648510]

i agree. infinity is nice on paper, i like my analysis and all, but i've never seen infinity as anyhing but a man made tool to help explain the finite world around him

[Anonymous No.5648513]

>>5648505
> lol
exactly how I feel

you're coming around

[Anonymous No.5648585]

>>5648340

Pythagorean theorem?

[Anonymous No.5648608]

>>5648508

Oh goody, one less social science faggot here.

[Anonymous No.5648616]

>>5648608
/pol/ IS social science, and it's retarded.

[Anonymous No.5648621]

>>5648616

Do you even browse race threads on /sci/? While I'm pretty sure that most of them are made by /pol/, they are usually overrun by people desperately attributing all the differences to culture and economic class - anything but genetics.

And it's pretty funny how you think /pol/ comprises of social science. There is some pseudo-science there, but definitely not social science (unless you're talking about the people they're usually arguing against).

[Anonymous No.5648641]

>>5648621
Keep defending sourceless data

[Anonymous No.5648647]

>>5648641

Keep making sourceless claims.