[ 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: 79 KB, 960x675, wildberger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8622187 No.8622187[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Let 10^200 be the biggest natural number. We know that n is natural if and only if n+1 is also natural. 10^200+1 is not natural, therefore 10^200 is not a natural number. So 10^200-1 isn't natural either, and inductively every smaller number is not natural, therefore there are no natural numbers.

>> No.8622199

>>8622187
>We know that n is natural if and only if n+1 is also natural
Prove it idiot

>> No.8622223

>Op is a faggot.

>> No.8622340

A natural number is any number that can be divided by 0
can 10^200+1 be divided by 0?

>> No.8622381

>>8622187
>We know that n is natural if and only if n+1 is also natural.
0 is not natural. 0+1 is natural. Checkmate

>> No.8622391

>>8622187
>Let 10^200 be the biggest natural number

>> No.8622412

>>8622187
is he our guy?

>> No.8622420

>>8622187
>Let 10^200 be the biggest natural number
nice fucking premises OP

i have a better one
>Let us assumme that the moon is made of cheese.
>Furthermore, let us assume that, on any planet whose moon is made of cheese, anime makes you a pedophile.
>QED all animewatchers are pedophiles

logically proven!!??!?

>> No.8622477

>>8622381
OP btfo

>> No.8622530

>>8622420
Wildberger has rigorously proved that 10^200 is the biggest natural number, that's not unsupported claim

>> No.8622966

>>8622530
1+10^200 is a natural number, and it's bigger.

>> No.8622969

>>8622420
>all animewatchers are pedophiles

This one is true, though

>> No.8622978

>>8622966
>1+10^200 is a natural number
That's where you're wrong, kiddo

>> No.8622999

>>8622187

>if and only if
>let n = -1

>>8622381

>0 is not natural

what fucking construction are you using that starts at 1

>> No.8623007

>>8622999
0 normally isn't natural. That's why we also use Z+ for the non-negative integers, instead of just saying N

>> No.8623142

>>8622381
But the induction goes as if n is not natural, n-1 is not natural, not the other way around

>> No.8623350

>>8623007
It can be or be not natural, depends only on convention.
But it's pain in the ass when in half of your classes 0 is natural and in other half it isn't and you can get your grade cut down just because you which convention do they use

>> No.8623358

If 10^200 is the largest natural number then how many rational numbers are there?

>> No.8623401

>>8623358
10^200

>> No.8623415

>>8622187
the same line of proof can be used to show that there is no upper bound on natural numbers

>> No.8623421

>>8622530
ok, post the video

>> No.8623422

>>8622187
>Let 10^200 be the biggest natural number
>therefore 10^200 is not a natural number

what did he mean by this

>> No.8623426

>>8622187
>>8623415
>proof by induction
>meaning anything
Pick 1.0 (one) option

>> No.8623459

>>8622978
>wildfags actually believe this

>> No.8623464

>>8622199
That statement is derived from the definition of the natural set.

>> No.8623548

>>8623464
Not true, even in nonwildbergerian maths, it would mean that all negative integers are also natural, that iff holds only for n>0

>> No.8623853
File: 98 KB, 940x624, CheckItNigger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8623853

>>8622530
>Wildberger
>rigorously proved

Pick one

https://www.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/595o2z/norman_wildberger_has_proven_the_goldbach/

>> No.8623855

>let n=10^300 be my penis
>n can be natural penis
>n is no penis
i have proven the riemann hypothesis.