[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Maintenance is complete! We got more disk space.
Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 409 KB, 1144x888, brainlets.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
9538843 No.9538843 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Who /finitist/ here?
Fucking lol at the brainlets who fell for the infinity meme.

>> No.9538848

>he is not an /ultrafinitist/

>> No.9538860

Serious question, why do you deny infinity?

>> No.9538884

Infinity or not we won't see that shit in our lifetime it's nice to think that when we die though the universe keeps fucking spinning without us.

>> No.9538888

meaningless abstraction of something that doesn't exist in the real world.

>> No.9538898

It's not meaningless at all, and how do you know it doesn't exist in the 'real world'?

>> No.9538910

>i don't understand it
>must mean it doesn't exist

this is the equivalent of sticking your head in the ground

tell me how long can you walk around a circle before finding its end?
infinity is everywhere and extremely useful in mathematics and other areas, but you don't know shit do you

>> No.9538911

>Not eternity.


>> No.9538926

>tell me how long can you walk around a circle before finding its end?
Zero. No end, no walk.

>> No.9539244

1. 1 is in N.
2. If an element n is in N then n+1 is in N.
3. N is the intersection of all sets satisfying (1) and (2).
Sorry OP, infinity exists.

>> No.9539250

What's the last decimal point of Pi?

>> No.9539275

talk to us about your finitist theory of real analysis anon
and please, we want to hear everything about how you solve ODEs

>> No.9539293

not only that by if we designate a beginning to the circle, the point we begin walking, its end is when we reach that point again. It's like saying a rubber band is infinite because it has no defined ending point. That's gay.

>> No.9539303

This is why math is retarded
Nothing you just said is any different than the standard definition of infinity, you just dressed it up in different wording and said it was "proved"

>> No.9539323

You can ignore him anyway because this isn't how anything in mathematical logic works regardless, except as a shorthand.

Axioms of, say, arithmetic do not assume a domain of discourse, and that poster is confusing a prior given infinite set satisfying axioms with the construction of an infinite set (no such thing is constructed, it is assumed: this is the axiom of infinity).

>> No.9539626

>I ignore a problem so it doesn't exist
The only person you're trolling is yourself

>> No.9539848

Until you die?
Or are we talking about something that runs forever. Hmmm, seems like you are assuming what you want to prove?

>> No.9539849
File: 6 KB, 251x201, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>starts with assumption infinity exists
>build mathematical concepts around the assumption
>using the built concepts to prove infinity exists

>> No.9539856

>real world

>> No.9539864

What's the largest number?

>> No.9539875

>falls for finite meme.
A finite thing is bounded. A collection of finite things is still bounded. How do finite things bound themselves? Any infinite thing trivially solves this problem. Finitists BTFO

>> No.9539876
File: 2.10 MB, 360x360, r83WAmU.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

If infinityfags have to assume the existence of Groethendieck universes to avoid cardinal autism, why not just assume the existence of a Groethendieck integer?

>> No.9539940

The largest number is countable :^)

>> No.9539943
File: 616 KB, 2518x1024, finitism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.9539947
File: 30 KB, 941x522, What do you mean i always have a remainder.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Infinity is not a rigorous value because pic related can be proven true.

>> No.9539953

No it can't

>> No.9539995

1/3 > 0.3
1/3 > 0.33
1/3 > 0.333
1/3 > 0.3333
1/3 > 0.33333
1/3 > 0.333333
1/3 > 0.3333333
1/3 > 0.33333333
1/3 > 0.333333333
1/3 > 0.3333333333
1/3 > 0.33333333333
1/3 > 0.333333333333
1/3 > 0.3333333333333
1/3 > 0.33333333333333
1/3 > 0.333333333333333
1/3 > 0.3333333333333333
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333
1/3 > 0.333333333333333333
1/3 > 0.3333333333333333333
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333
1/3 > 0.333333333333333333333
1/3 > 0.3333333333333333333333
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333333
dunno about you but it looks like if we continued comparing more and more 3's, we'll always get the same result that 1/3 is greater.

>> No.9540017

/pol/ trying to win argument by obfuscating details.
None of those are the equation from the picture. Please submit an appropriate form.

>> No.9540019

The sentence is the equation from the picture. Learn to read lol.

>> No.9540030

Sorry, i missed the equation in sentence format at university.
Fucking /pol/

>> No.9540040

you mean -1/12

>> No.9540106

1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333310
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333311
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333312
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333313
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333314
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333315
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333316
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333317
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333318
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333319
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333320
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333321
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333322
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333323
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333324
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333325
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333326
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333327
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333328
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333329
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333330
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333331
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333332
1/3 > 0.33333333333333333333333
dunno about you but it looks like if we continued adding more and more 1's, we'll always get the same result that 1/3 is greater.

>> No.9540128
File: 44 KB, 526x939, Screenshot_2018-02-23-21-20-34-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You apparently missed learning division in elementary school is what you meant to say.
>m-muh /pol/ bogeyman

>> No.9540164

>I don't know how the decimal system works

>> No.9540239

>i hate lines and circles too

>> No.9540242

1/3 = 0.3 + 1/30
1/3 = 0.33 + 1/300
1/3 = 0.333 + 1/3000
1/3 = 0.333... + 1/inf
dunno about you but it looks like if we continued adding more and more 3's, we'll always get the same result that 1/3=1/3

>> No.9540275
File: 224 KB, 481x325, 1518634307153.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9540277
File: 393 KB, 640x360, 1507483327443.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Also you can't increment to infinity.

>> No.9540281

All this tells you is that the sequence you're looking at is bounded above by 1/3. In fact, from here you can demonstrate the limit of said sequence must be 1/3. And so in fact you have started the proof of the fact 0.33.. = 1/3.

>> No.9540282

Uhh.. no.

>> No.9540285
File: 29 KB, 600x494, reece.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You cannot reach the boundary. It's unbounded.


>> No.9540293

retards that have never heard or used calculus

>> No.9540298

Choose any number x such that x < 1/3. There exists an integer m such that

x < 0.3 + 0.03 + 0.003 + ... + 0.(n zeros)3

for all n >= m. Therefore, 0.333... cannot be equal to any value less than 1/3.

>> No.9540343

Prove infinity is not well defined by finding the largest number

>> No.9540362

Not believing in infinity doesn't necessitate believing in a highest number. If you add any number of rationals together you'll get another rational. There's no maximum number you can add after which this breaks down, and yet supposedly after infinite summations you can have an irrational number.

Finitists don't necessarily believe that there's a largest natural numbers, but they do believe you can't put all the naturals into one set.

>> No.9540365

just did it

>> No.9540383

so youlre saying that there is no limit to natural numbers?
Isn't basically infinity?

>> No.9540394

You fucking retard. Thats not what your math says at all.

>> No.9540420
File: 6 KB, 281x572, zero-point-nine-repeating-herp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9540424

Holy shit this is the dumbest post ever posted on sci.


>> No.9540429

Point out which nth step in >>9540128 will produce the infinite'th 3

>> No.9540430
File: 9 KB, 211x239, 1513971000563.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

thats clearly just 3 threes.

>> No.9540431

The infinite'th nth step. Are you retarded?

>> No.9540432

You can't increment to infinity. Are you retarded?

>> No.9540437

>abstractions about infinity are too hard for me

maybe math is not for you, calculus must give you a headache, poor guy

>> No.9540443


>> No.9540445

Nigger you don't even know how to do division and you're calling me bad at math? Cut off your penis with a butter knife, my man.

>> No.9540461

nice avoiding my points, you must be in the humanities

>> No.9540466
File: 30 KB, 481x425, 1514070409979.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>can't do math or read

>> No.9540468

Ellipses aren't numbers.

>> No.9540470

>can't abstract about infinity
>never did calculus or understand it

>> No.9540476

You would kill yourself if they offered a course in suicide at school, wouldn't you...?

You obviously can't think and only know how to do what you were told to do to get a gradr in a course, even though because you can't think you also don't actually understand what you were taught.

>> No.9540477

Kill yourself or leave sci just dont post anymore.

>> No.9540478
File: 50 KB, 488x398, Religion math.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>>>/reddit/atheism is that way, fedora.

>> No.9540482

If you used calculus doesn't mean you understand it.

>> No.9540485

>infinity too spooky

>> No.9540486

numbers don't exist in the first place, friend. they're also a meaningless abstraction

>> No.9540491

Infinity is defined as a value larger than numbers, which means it isn't a number. You lack reading comprehension and basic logic by refusing to understand what you were taught about infinity is complete bullshit and absolutely worthless.

>> No.9540492

i never said infinity is a number

>> No.9540494

That jewish statement is meaningful, but sky jew worshipers misunderstand it.

>> No.9540495

Infinity is not defined as a value.

>> No.9540497


>> No.9540498

Anyone ever found it weird with 1 simple division you can make any repeating set of decimal values except the numbers that only have nines?
9/9 = 1
99/99 = 1
999/999 = 1
9999/9999 = 1
99999/99999 = 1

98/99 =0.989898...
998/999 = 0.998998998...
theres no way to differentiate numbers made from 9's, and the only way to make a repeating 9 number from a division would be [math]\frac{\bar{9}}{1\bar{0}[/math]

>> No.9540499

It doesnt matter what you fucking say it is lmfao. Holy shit. Do you actually believe you are important?

>> No.9540501 [DELETED] 


>> No.9540502

are you retarded? you were going on and on about what i know about infinity like you know anything and i responded
fucking moron

>> No.9540503

[math]\frac{\bar{9}}{1 \bar{0}}[/math]

>> No.9540504

It doesn't exist.

>> No.9540505
File: 51 KB, 553x569, r.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>symbols can't mean other symbols

>> No.9540507

As expected from stupid christcuck nigger.

>> No.9540509

Of course you couldn't figure from the obvious that I meant your intepretation of infinity was what didn't matter.

Infinity isn't on the numberline. You can't increment to it. You can "use" it to say that one could count "infinitely" on the numberline, but you can't use it in lieu of a number. Now if you want to agree to that, you have to accept there is no infinite'th step in long division of 1/3 that would differ from comparison's sake to defy innumerably proveably true circumstances that denote no matter how many 3's exist in the decimal, [math]0.\bar{3} < \frac{1}{3}[/math], because there cannot actually exist an infinite amount of 3's, if not by loose definition then just because infinity is not a number and therefore cannot rationalize as an amount.

>> No.9540516
File: 85 KB, 400x509, 405.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Not believing in infinity doesn't necessitate believing in a highest number. If you add any number of rationals together you'll get another rational.
So you can repeat this process of adding as many times as you want?
Without an end?
As IN no FINIshing sTEp?
Hmmmmmmm, if only we had a word for this concept of no end...

>> No.9540518

>actually exist
nothing in math 'actually exist'
go back to kindergarden

>> No.9540520

yes there can, that bar placed above the 3 indicates exactly that, that there are an infinite number of 3's, that's the point of the bar

>there cannot actually exist an infinite amount of 3's
durrr, if it can't actually exist better to just ignore and stick my head in the ground
with only people like you we wouldn't have extended the number line into negatives

>> No.9540522

Its a description of present and ongoing action, it's not a description of past tense. You can (potentially) do something infinitely, like sum numbers. You can't have summed an infinite amount of numbers, however, for that implies an end occurred, and an end defines it as finite.

Infinity is legitamately the dumbest shit ever conceived, and worse yet it has no practical usage in any virtue of engineering. It's a dumb idea underpinned by also being needlessly useless to anyone's efforts.

>> No.9540525

In attempts of justifyinf infinity you just refused to acknowledge that numbers exist and you're telling me to go back to kindergarten even though you're the one who just forfeit your ability to fucking count?

>> No.9540528

what about negative numbers, do they exist? if so, show proof of them in the real world

>> No.9540534

Negative three isn't on the numberline. You can't increment to it. You can "use" it to say that one could count "negatively" on the numberline, but you can't use it in lieu of a number. Now if you want to agree to that, you have to accept there is no negative first step in long subtraction of 3 that would differ from comparison's sake to defy innumerably provably true circumstances that denote no matter how many negative signs exist in the number, [math]-3 < (0-3)[/math], because there cannot actually exist a negative amount of 3, if not by loose definition then just because negative three is not a number and therefore cannot positivize as an amount.

>> No.9540536

>numbers exist
Numbers are abstractions of qualities, not existing things in themselves. You can pick up a rock, or look at a sunset, or pick up radio waves and listen to a broadcast news program. You can't interact physically with the abstract concept of the number 5.

>> No.9540537

This is recursively retarded. You want to say [math]0.\bar{3} = \frac{1}{3}[/math] because you believe the bar means "infinite threes", even though it is well established that there is no such thing as an infinite amount of something because infinity is not a number. The bar over the three doesnt mean infinite. It means there is a pattern of ongoing repetition.
1/3 > 0.3
1/3 > 0.33
1/3 > 0.333
You can continue extending more threes into the decimal in a repeating, ongoing pattern, and 1/3 will always be greater than that decimal value.

>> No.9540540

Existence is a state of being. If you dont believe 3 exists, you are in a state of being completely fucking retarded.

>> No.9540542

Just like pepe the frog

>> No.9540543

you'll never get to infinity just by adding repetitions one at a time, to get to infinity to have to add infinity repetitions
see how it works? retard

>> No.9540546

ok "finitists" whats the largest number

>> No.9540548
File: 175 KB, 600x600, 58b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Infinity is not a number. Let me fix your post [math]senpai[/math]

>you'll never get to a lot just by adding repetitions one at a time, to get to a lot you have to add a lot of repetitions
see how it works? i'm retarded

>> No.9540549

In mathematics, 0.999... (also written [math]0. \bar{9}[/math], among other ways), denotes the repeating decimal consisting of infinitely many 9 after the decimal point (and one 0 before it).

>> No.9540550



>> No.9540551

countable and uncountable infinities are both infities

>> No.9540552

How about a real answer there is such a thing as countable infinities i.e. the fucking natural numbers

>> No.9540555

numbers are what they are, they 'exist' like a dollar 'exists'
They are not pebbles that a monkey plays with, like you do.

>> No.9540557

You won't get a real answer because finitists are all troll or legitimately insane

>> No.9540558

There is no such thing as an infinite amount of anything. Maybe such an idea exists conceptually, but it does not exist practically. And by conceptually, i mean very early stages of conception. It's very clearly still in open beta while the developers try to figure out what their idea for it was in the first place. It's buggy, glitchy, doesn't work the way its supposed to, it's clearly unfinished, but you insist on buying into it anyway even though you're not even getting a full, proper product.

>> No.9540561

I counter with the fact that you have had infinity many dicks in your ass.

>> No.9540565
File: 11 KB, 231x160, angry-business-man-screaming-closeup-portrait-hands-air-wide-open-mouth-yelling-black-background-negative-emotion-facial-43001846.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Pick one

>> No.9540567

countable in the sense that you can be count it not that you can count all of it. Brainlet.

>> No.9540568
File: 54 KB, 680x380, 17zpe7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I've had no number amount of dicks in my ass so you are correct.

>> No.9540569

>such an idea exists conceptually
welcome to grownup mathematics,
please leave your crayons at the kindergarten

>> No.9540571


>> No.9540572

>what is aleph-null

>> No.9540575

A poor excuse at trying to redefine infinity but then giving up and making an offbrand product that no one fucking knows about.

>> No.9540577


>> No.9540578

> that no one fucking knows

oh, honey...

>> No.9540579

Read the whole post before you reply next time. Welcome to daycare. Lets learn to read.

>> No.9540581

It doesn't exist.

>> No.9540585

not using your idea, just those words.
only thing of any value in your post

>> No.9540590

Any other unironic finitists here?

>> No.9540596

Anyway, infinity is not a number. It also has no value. Infinity can only be best described as a vector or a direction or a command to do more. There are other words and phrases that accomplish those concepts though, so infinity doesn't even have the kind of value in relation to a good enough reason for it to be used in vernacular.

It is a poorly crafted idea created by brainlets.

>> No.9540599

so what you're saying is that infinity exists and is useful
glad we cleared that up

>> No.9540626

Gdajllllop exists. I just made it up. It's useful because it is the largest possible real number.
you can't say it doesn't exist because it is obviosly written right there and you can see it.
You can count to gdajllllop on the numberline. It comes after any number you count to but then stop on. Count to 9:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [math]\underline{\stackrel{\overline{\mathbb{R}}}{\rlap{\rlap{\rlap{1}{3}}{\rlap{5}{7}}}{\rlap{\rlap{9}{6}}{\rlap{7}{8}}}}}[/math]
It also comes after any number you invoke, for example 732.
732 < [math]\underline{\stackrel{\overline{\mathbb{R}}}{\rlap{\rlap{\rlap{1}{3}}{\rlap{5}{7}}}{\rlap{\rlap{9}{6}}{\rlap{7}{8}}}}}[/math]

You might want to complain that 733 comes after 732, and you'd be right, but you just invoked 733, so [math]\underline{\stackrel{\overline{\mathbb{R}}}{\rlap{\rlap{\rlap{1}{3}}{\rlap{5}{7}}}{\rlap{\rlap{9}{6}}{\rlap{7}{8}}}}}[/math] > 733

Its very useful.
It also has a wonderful property. If you invoke gdajllllop and add any number to it, you get [math]\underline{\stackrel{\overline{\mathbb{R}}}{\rlap{\rlap{\rlap{1}{3}}{\rlap{5}{7}}}{\rlap{\rlap{9}{6}}{\rlap{7}{8}}}}}_{+n}[/math], so you can say that the real number amount of 3's in 0.333... is [math]\underline{\stackrel{\overline{\mathbb{R}}}{\rlap{\rlap{\rlap{1}{3}}{\rlap{5}{7}}}{\rlap{\rlap{9}{6}}{\rlap{7}{8}}}}}_{+\underline{\stackrel{\overline{\mathbb{R}}}{\rlap{\rlap{\rlap{1}{3}}{\rlap{5}{7}}}{\rlap{\rlap{9}{6}}{\rlap{7}{8}}}}}}[/math]
Gdajllllop-n is just adding a negative number and works the same way.
So if x=0.999... and there are gdajllllop amount of 9's in the decimal, 10x = 9.999... with gdajllllop-1 amount of 9's, so 10x-x = 8.999... gdajllllop-1 nines followed by a 1, and 8.999... gdajllllop-1 nines followed by a 1 divided by 9 = 0.999... with gdajllllop nines.

I suggest you pronounce it g'daj'lop.

>> No.9540633

[math] \displaystyle
\stackrel{ \mathbb{R}}{etard}
exists. I just saw it up above. It's useless because it is the dumbest possible shitpost.

>> No.9540634

You missed out, the dumbest possible shitpost was >>9540424

>> No.9540642

I berated it for being useless but somehow you believe it's useful?

I mean. We can put it one way, infinity is and will only ever be useful to me alone. It has no use for you, just as much as my eyes are only useful for me and my eyes aren't useful for you. You'd have to be me to see through my eyes, but you aren't me and you cannot be me, and anyone who tries to be me ends up committing suicide because they lack everything required to handle being me in any greater capacity than simply acting like me at face value.

>> No.9540648

>useless post

>> No.9540763
File: 22 KB, 308x309, cretin.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

mfw there are people itt whose brain is to small to understand and manipulate infinity

>> No.9540784
File: 603 KB, 984x1124, 1465332144627.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9540809


>> No.9540840

>If you dont believe 3 exists
Get your terms straight, idiot.
3 exists *as an abstraction*. Not as a physical object.
If your retard son gets hit by a car while riding his tricycle the fact 1 of his trike's 3 wheels fell off doesn't magically make the abstract concept of 3 now refer to 2. Objects described using the abstraction of numbers aren't themselves numbers.

>> No.9540993

Want to tell me how long it'll take for sin(x) to deviate from its wave?

>> No.9541099

Then enlighten me

>> No.9541110
File: 266 KB, 368x657, 1489271444149.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>u r idiot
>3 dossent exist
>3 exissts

How could one person be as dumb as you.

>> No.9541114

Learn to write an equation for one then retry. It's barely intelligible what you were trying to prove, but 0.333=1/3 was obviously not accomplished. You made an assumption about infinity without providing what that assumption was.

>> No.9541120

Numbers aren't physical objects you retard, they're abstract concepts. You can't pick up a number with your hand or detect a number with diagnostic equipment. You're confusing two completely different sorts of referents because you have the intellectual subtlety of a toddler.

>> No.9541122

Infinity isn't abstract. There are literal right and wrong ways to using it. I'm just trying to help you understand that you use it the wrong way, and i don't care whether or not you can't use it the right way.

>> No.9541123

I said 3 exists. You call me an idiot, imply 3 doesn't exist, then say
>3 exists

You exist in a state of unbelievable fucking idiocy.

>> No.9541133

I know how to write it properly, but I'm too lazy to LATEX on sci to make a proper power series. I didn't claim to prove that .333... = 1/3, just that every number less than 1/3 is also less than .333... . I know sci shits on English majors but you should at least strive for literacy.

>> No.9541144

I never once said 3 doesn't exist. I repeatedly said it isn't a physical object, it's an abstract concept. Learn to read, idiot.

>> No.9541153

A g a i n, that isn't what the post said.
>0.333... cannot be equal to any value less than 1/3.
>[math]0.\bar{3} \neq x \\ x < \frac{1}{3}[/math]
you are only saying 0.333... doesn't exist.

>> No.9541163

I never once said 3 was a physical object, meaning you complaining about 3 not being a physical object has no intelligibke value to this discussion. Kill yourself.

>> No.9541173

There is no way people are unironically finitists.

>> No.9541192

I honestly can't figure out why you're having so much trouble with this. You've taken a calc course before, right? Seen epsilon delta proofs? It's essentially one of those, but restructured a little and only applied to the left side.

If you set up a full epsilon delta, you'll find that 0.333... is greater than every number less than 1/3 and less than every number greater than 1/3, and the only other real number that shares these properties is 1/3.

>> No.9541210


>> No.9541212

The popularity of it here seems to be based in the mistaken notion some numbers are real world things and other numbers aren't.

>> No.9541246

Almost no working mathematician wants to deal with inaccessible cardinals or really anything beyond [math]2^{2^{2^{\aleph_0}}}[/math]. They're just finitists under a different name.

>> No.9541260

Almost no working mathematician has a problem with irrational numbers.

>> No.9541282


>> No.9541297

And that's not finitism under a different name.

>> No.9541310

You have your arbitrary stopping point, I have mine.

>> No.9541312

dude your getting trolled af boooiiiiii

>> No.9541320
File: 150 KB, 914x1390, bennyboi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Z = Z2 + C

>> No.9541321

Well now you're just being dishonest. You wrote:
>Almost no working mathematician wants to deal with inaccessible cardinals or really anything beyond [math]2^{2^{2^{\aleph_0}}}[/math].
Not bothering to work with something isn't interchangeable with claiming something doesn't exist. I don't bother doing my own plumbing or air conditioning repair, that doesn't mean I'm the same as someone who's going around claiming they don't believe in pipes or heat pumps.

>> No.9541323

infinity exists in many forms. one example is that the universe (or its source) is eternal as there will never be nothing.

>> No.9541468

You assume the amount of 3's in 0.333... is finite.
The only way you wouldn't be able to understand that it unmistakeably the assumption you're making is if you are incapable of thinking. You are so dumb that you don't realize mathematicians before you who used infinity also used it wrong, and could have only ever taught it wrong.

You are so stupid that you believe humanity is infallible. You are so stupid that you believe there is no chance anything you've been taught in school is useless or incorrect. You are literally a brainlet explicitly because you try too hard to overcompensate for your idiocy by doing everything you can to get a piece of paper that says you acquired an education because you're too stupid to realize knowledge is free.

I hope a nigger shoots you in the back of the head and gets away with it, all just for the $5 in your wallet.

>> No.9541474

>you believe humanity is infallible
don't worry, you are a perfect example of the opposite

>> No.9541478
File: 68 KB, 1080x372, Screenshot_2018-02-24-11-48-12-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9541486

>It's possible for people to be wrong
>Therefore everyone all the mathematicians throughout history who used infinity were wrong
That is the weakest argument possible. It's a pretty big tipoff your position is bullshit when it's actually *easier* to argue against the general concept of knowledge itself than it is to argue for the actual topic you're promoting.

>> No.9541488

aww, it's a parrot
Polly wants a cracker, squawk

>> No.9541493
File: 321 KB, 1200x878, 1200px-Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Tower_of_Babel_(Vienna)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I said exactly how it was wrong before i said that people can obviously be wrong, and you instead chose to focus not on how wrong you are, but how wrong you think i am for claiming humans are not infallible.

You are so inanely fucking stupid. You are the dumbest motherfucker. Holy shit. Oh my god you're so stupid. Keep posting this is amazing.

>> No.9541495

this is amazing

>> No.9541502

lol, cry more about your shit arguments.

>> No.9541527

The shit argumemt was the fallacy assumption of how repeating decimals work. If you assume 0.333... = 1/3 because "there is no value between 0.333.. & 1", you are making two distinctly retarded assumptions.
1) you assume infinity is finite, that there exist an infinite amount of 3's already, but because it's past tense that means an end came thus it is not as infinite as you claim, because an infinite amount, if one ever existed, could never exist in the past or present, but could only potentially exist on the day after any future moment you can imagine.
2) "because there exist no integers between 1 and 2, 1&2 must be the same integer" is another way of writing the obviously retarded logic from >>9541192

You will accept me for fact or you wont make it anywhere.

>> No.9541528

Meant 0.333... & 1/3.
The problrm of course being similar to "nothing between 0.999... & 1"

>> No.9541535

*looses zeno's arrow*

t. never learned about equivalence classes

>> No.9541542

They very clearly have a meaning. You know when a group of object has "twoness".

>> No.9541548

>Without an end?
No, you eventually die, retard.

>> No.9541550

sorry sweetie, it's just not intuitive

>> No.9541553

>You assume the amount of 3's in 0.333... is finite.
I don't. I make two assumptions:

1) A sum with more threes is greater than a sum with fewer threes, and this holds in the infinite case, meaning 0.333... is greater than any terminating sequence of threes. This bounds 0.333... from below.

2) For any positive integer n, (10^-n) * 4 >= (10^-n) * 3.333..., and this holds in the infinite case. This bounds 0.333... from above.

>you assume infinity is finite, that there exist an infinite amount of 3's already, but because it's past tense that means an end came thus it is not as infinite as you claim, because an infinite amount, if one ever existed, could never exist in the past or present, but could only potentially exist on the day after any future moment you can imagine.
get help

>"because there exist no integers between 1 and 2, 1&2 must be the same integer" is another way of writing the obviously retarded logic from >>9541192 (You)
Actually the equivalent argument is "because 1 - 1 = 0, 1 and 1 must be the same number" which absolutely holds for integers. An epsilon delta proof shows that the difference between a sequence and it's limit can be made arbitrarily small. If a - b = 0 then a = b.

>> No.9541605

Don't you fucking argue with me retard. If getting pinned under my thumb is so uncomfortable for you then try harder to avoid being retarded. You can't say you don't believe infinity has a property of finiteness, it's clear enough you believe it based on how you talk about it and use it.

>> No.9541610

get help

>> No.9541613

A= 1.0
B= 0.999...

A-B = 0.000...1

Nope, you fucked up.

>> No.9541622

How many 0s is that before the 1? The 0s have to end before you can put a 1 after them, and if they end they're not infinite. That's kinda the whole point.

>> No.9541625

Do you think infinity+1 has any meaning?

>> No.9541627

You know you don't need to personally write down each number in an infinite sequence for it to have meaning, right? There's a reason why mathematics and physics are two different disciplines, you're not supposed to limit mathematics to real world concerns like that. You can apply mathematics to real world concerns, but just because accounting exists doesn't mean complex analysis doesn't for example.

>> No.9541629

If infinity+1 has no meaning, that means you think infinity is a finite ceiling where no number can be higher. Thats kinda the whole point.

>> No.9541632

>you think

>> No.9541636

0.000...1 = 0
0.000...15558883222 = 0

>> No.9541643

The amount of 0's is a countable number amount, just the same as it were in 0.999... or any repeating decimal. Thats the whole point. You cant ever reach infinity, and a number must be finite. Righy here this obviously states that infinity must then not be a number, as it cannot be counted, and if its not a number then it can be attributed as a number amount, so saying "there are infinite 9's in 0.999..." is utterly meaningless. You can only say there are "infinitely countable" 9's, or you could just as easily say there are "a lot" of 9's, both phrases mean the same vague, brainlet bullshit of lazy concatenation and inadequate description. What this means is when you invoke a repeating decimal number like 0.999..., what you are actually doing is saying that the 9's go on forever. You can only compare how many 9's there actually may be if you assume to count them, and if you assume to count them there must always be a real number amount of 9's as counting to infinity is not an achievable action. 0.999... is only truthfully as good as 0.(1000 9's) or 0.(1 million 9's), or, just as vague as you like to be you could claim 0.(an arbitrarily large real number amount of 9's)

>> No.9541645

Infinity isn't a specific ceiling, it's every ceiling that cannot be expressed in reals. It's not finite because it's defined as being greater than every finite number.

Which of the following statements do you think are true?
0.333...2 < 0.333...
0.333...3 > 0.333...
0.333...4 > 0.333...
0.3333... > 0.333...

>> No.9541646

0.999...9 = [math]0.\bar{9}[/math]
0.999...027362527 = [math]0.\bar{9}[/math]

>> No.9541655

Infinity is the element of the extended reals that is greater than every real number.
The number of 9s is greater than every real number.
Therefore the number of 9s is infinity.

>> No.9541658

Why do religious nuts always have these walls of text... fucking autistic babblers.

>> No.9541661

If infinity is not a ceiling, then there exist values greater than infinity and infinity+n is meaningful.

For your question you must make the assumption that the "..." implies a static singular amount so as to retaij a consistent value betweem each of the examples. In that sense, if i reduced "..." to mean " ", your values look like:
0.3332 < 0.333; false
0.3333 > 0.333; true
0.3334 > 0.333; true
0.3333 > 0.333; true

If you want to argue more you're gonna start implying "..." can arbitrarily and randomly be any value and isn't consistent from one invocation to the next.

>> No.9541663

Not him, but I think you have to be very clear about what sort of "meaning" you're talking about, as in the examples:
A) Can an infinitely long running process be extended by one second? No, I don't believe it can, but
B) Can you refer to the concept of having an infinitely long running process in one location, like a wheel that keeps spinning forever, and also refer to a separate finitely long process in another location, like a different wheel that spins for 1 minute and then stops? Yes, I believe you can.
And this is pretty much how an idea like ω + 1 is handled in the systems that use that sort of idea. You treat it like having two collections or two objects.

>> No.9541668


>> No.9541674

>If infinity is not a ceiling, then there exist values greater than infinity and infinity+n is meaningful.
Nope. Like I said, infinity is EVERY ceiling. If a value is greater than every real, it is infinity. Thus infinity+1 is also infinity, as it is greater than every real. Same for infinity-1 and infinity+infinity.

The second part was meant for >>9541613, who I thought was also you. If not just ignore it; I was demonstrating that putting more numbers after the ellipsis is nonsensical.

>> No.9541676

You have to instantiate a greatest real number to assume an infinite value can exist that is greater, yet any real number value regardless if it is great or not can become a different greater real number value by adding any real number value to it, so in this sense you cannot ever reach, know, or use infinity or properties of infinity as a value that has a specific relation to numbers.

You either see it as a ceiling where no number can be greater, thereby strictly definining it with properties of finiteness and therefore paradoxical to your usage of it, or you see it as a work of forever, never ending, never properly reaching infinity, which too is paradoxical to your usage of it.

>> No.9541688

All of this says that you can't have an infinite amount of something. You just can't. If you had it, you grasped it, you encircled it, you encapsulated it, you put a finite definition around it, and if you do this it is no longer infinite. It is shroedingers gold where you can only let the gold rest in your hand, but as soon as you close your fist in attempts of grasping it, the gold miraculously disappears. You can touch it, you can see it, but you can't have it. You can't have or ever have had an infinite amount of something. You can however have reasonable access to believing an infinite property might exist in this golden power that may lay in your hands, but this golden power will never be yours to use or to have. You close your fist and its gone, and all you're left with is the memory of what it meant to you up until you closed your fist, never knowing what else this golden power could have shown you if you just kept simply observing it.

>> No.9541689

>You have to instantiate a greatest real number to assume an infinite value can exist that is greater, yet any real number value regardless if it is great or not can become a different greater real number value by adding any real number value to it, so in this sense you cannot ever reach, know, or use infinity or properties of infinity as a value that has a specific relation to numbers.
Nope. All you need to do to prove me wrong is name a real number greater than my concept of infinity, or name two real numbers that can't be added in my system. Should be easy, right?

>> No.9541692

get help

>> No.9541693

Your concept of infinity isnt a real number. You may as well ask what is the greater real number greater than potato. Potato isn't a number value.

>> No.9541694

I don't need black people in my life, thanks.

>> No.9541701

>Your concept of infinity isnt a real number.
Obviously. I specifically stated it was greater than every real number, so it can't be a real number itself. It is, however, a well-defined element of the extended reals, unlike potatoes.

Also, define "number value". Should be good for a laugh.

>> No.9541706

classic dumb racist

>> No.9541718

The second part still stands. If you believe "..." means infinite, do you also believe "..." is a static, well defined, singularly consistent value?
Do you agree that i could take the "..." out from each of the four examples equally and solve them as I had?
A better way to pull the trick would be using the overline;
[math]0.\bar{3}4 > 0.\bar{3}[/math]
But all the same, we could just subtract [math]0.\bar{3}[/math] from each side and get [math]0.\bar{0}4 > 0.0[/math]

So is infinity well defined with a consistent value? Or is it poorly defined with a variety of different, paradoxical, counter-intuitive values?

>> No.9541725

>Do you agree that i could take the "..." out from each of the four examples equally and solve them as I had?
No, I think 0.333...4 is literally meaningless, and I was trying to point that out. You can't put more digits after an infinite sequence of digits.

>> No.9541728

Let xn be the sequence of numbers 1/n. We know that for any e greater than 0, there exists an N so that for all n greater than 0, |xn| < e. This gives us reasoning to say that "1/inf = 0".

>> No.9541730

0.333...4 = 0.333...
0.000...4 = 0

>> No.9541732

Sorry, I'm a little hungry

"there exists an N so that for all n greater than N"

>> No.9541759

It also says n/0 = infinity, not "undefined", even though the "undefined" comes from the senselessness that any n/0 = infinity, where the infinite divisions pay no heed to n when dividing by any non-zero number would otherwise pay attention to.
6/3 = 2
6/2 = 3
6/1 = 6
6/0 = infinity
Furthermore, using infinity as a number value like this allows for the case that 0×infinity = 1, or any number really.

[math]\sum_{n=1}^{\rightarrow} \frac{3}{10^n}[/math]
assuming the the sum continues forever and increments by 1 at every reference frame, can you point out at which value of n that you have surpassed a sufficiently reasonable amount of repeating 3's to assume there are no less significant values of the partial sums of any n beyond the n you point out?

>> No.9541765


Nope, because it equals infinity when you approach from the right and negative infinity when you approach from the left.

6/(-3) = -2
6/(-2) = -3
6/(-1) = -6
6/(0) = -infinity

>> No.9541768

>Furthermore, using infinity as a number value like this allows for the case that 0×infinity = 1, or any number really.

Wait, how?

>> No.9541769
File: 139 KB, 971x565, 1514403883630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>positive numbers aren't negative numbers
Holy shit captain obvious tell me more.
6 / -3 doesnt exist because the answer isn't 2 i guess.

>> No.9541773

"..." is infinity, nothing after "..." matters, it's like a black hole event horizon, once you go past it you're out of this world

>> No.9541777

He said 1/infinity = 0

Multiply both sides by infinity
(1/infinity) × infinity = 0×infinity
substitute a real number for a moment so can still folloe
(1/4) × 4 = 0×4
(1/4) = 0.25
0.25 × 4 = 1
(1/4) × 4 = 1

1 = 0×4
Back to infinity now
1 = 0×infinity

>> No.9541779

good answer

>> No.9541782

0×infinity undefined
1/infinity = 0

>> No.9541783

If nothing can come after "..." because nothing inside a black hole matters, that doesn't mean blackholes don't exist, or that nothing is inside a black hole.

Maybe think twice about your next analogy.

>> No.9541785

"out of this world" was too hard for you?

>> No.9541786

I see you never learned algebra.

>> No.9541793

I did, never mastered shitposting tho, my posts somehow aren't totally idiotic

>> No.9541809

How would a limit be formalized on a computer?

Computers contain only finite data, but a computation can either be finite or infinite. While computations of a limit are infinite, it will never provide a useful result. Limits can be approximated by taking an intermediate result after an arbitrary amount of computation, but the process does not preserve the concept of a limit.

From my own meditation, a limit is a function that takes two arguments, a starting point, and an inductive process, and computes an object that represents a number. The starting point may come in handy for computing limits for induction on rational numbers, or more complicated data types.

For example, let [math]S[/math] be the successor function on natural numbers that takes a number and returns its successor, then [math]limit(0,S)=+\infty[/math], as would [math]limit(S(0), S)=+\infty[/math], and so on and so forth. Note that this limit is only represented symbolically by [math]+\infty[/math], its actual representation would be some sort of data structure.

Define a sequence [math]s[/math] to be any function that takes one natural number as its arguments. One can also define an inductive process computing the next element of [math]s[/math] from the previously defined inductive process [math]S[/math] and [math]s[/math] itself.

[math]limit(s(0), inductive\_process(S,s))=lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} s(n)[/math]

Similarly, limits of a function [math]f[/math] can be defined by composing [math]f[/math] with a sequences converging to [math]x_0[/math] to define a new sequence converging to [math]f(x_0)[/math].

If anyone has relevant literature, I would be more than happy to take reading recommendations.

>> No.9541811

You are implying that no value can reasonably exist after the ellipses by comparing it to black holes, thereby saying you believe nothing can reasonably exist beyond a black hole's event horizon. This is what you fucking said. If you assume there is nothing inside a black hole then why do you think a black hole could exist?

There is obviously a substantial amount of something in a black hole else it would evaporate instantly, and just cause you cant interact with what is inside doesn't mean it isn't there. If you want to assume "..." means infinite, and that an infinite value can exist to have been knowably counted as such, you're dumb - but if you want to then extend that to no value can come after an infinite amount, you're super dumb. If you never travel to the south pole, that must mean it doesn't exist by your logic, and that there could be nothing beyond the south pole if you continued walking on the same path as you approached it.

>> No.9541818

This, i was shown how to fit an infinite line inside a finite space in the early 90s and either/or 'who is better' middle school insecure shit can just take a walk.

>> No.9541820

Mathematicians hate computers cause computers represent practical real world value. They're brainlets. They dont want to either work within boundaries or have to explain their work in a sufficient enough way to be reproduceable, much less be forced to prove the mechanics of their beliefs themselves by personally engineering the source code.

>> No.9541832

So is 6/0 infinity or negative infinity? You can make a limit approaching either. Any limit approaching 6/(-2) will approach -3 so it's well-defined.

>> No.9541838

The extended reals are not a field. Division by infinity is not multiplication by the inverse of infinity.

>> No.9541841

>nothing can reasonably exist beyond a black hole's event horizon
read again.
your brain doesn't work very well, does it?

>> No.9541850

Its literally what you fucking said. Kill yourself. Skip reading what you wrote, skip trying to understand yourself, just go directly to the end of things. Only then will you be able to fully grasp the finite end of the unending joke you have been.

>> No.9541853

both of you stop, the black hole comparison is dumb and expanding on it is dumber

Symbolically. I can prove certain limits despite the fact that I have only finite time and can only store a finite number of digits in my head.

>Mathematicians hate computers
LARPers get out

>> No.9541856

bring on the quote then, half-brain

>> No.9541871

>you stop
fuck off back to rebbit

>> No.9541872

>Computers contain only finite data
So do brains, what's your point?
>How would a limit be formalized on a computer?
The same way you formalize it on paper.

>> No.9541880

It would be a positive value obviously. Are you dumb?
+n/0 = +inf
-n/0 = -inf
The resulting values arent approaching 0. They're going in the opposite direction.

-6/3 = -2
-6/2 = -3
-6/1 = -6

As the divisor approaches zero, the result gets further from zero, regardless if positive or negative.

>> No.9541885

What you meant to say is "nanana booboo infinity is not a number so i can make any any RANDOM XDDDDD rule for it"

>> No.9541900

dunno about you but it looks like if we continued adding more and more 3s we'll eventually get to 0.

>> No.9541901

answered your own question.

>> No.9541904

jesus fucking christ, you have no mathematics education at all
it's like trying to teach a monkey to play chess

>> No.9541905


>> No.9541920

Really? Thats the pattern you're taking away from your work? Are you just pretending that you didn't obviously write a 3 after an amount of 0's? You obviously meant to write something else so let me fix your post for you
>1/3-0.3 = 0
>1/3-0.33 = 0
>1/3-0.333 = 0
Congratulations, you don't know how to do math.

>> No.9541927
File: 17 KB, 600x370, main-qimg-c5be56e1b5d297b9995615a47707f52b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

No, you fucked it up.
6/(-3) = -2
6/(-2) = -3
6/(-1) = -6
6/(0) = -inf

I can count to 0 by 3 2 1 0 or by -3 -2 -1 0. These have different limits. Would 6/0 be defined by the first limit but not the second?

For any binary operation * and a real number r, r * inf is equal to the limit of r * x as x goes to infinity. Addition and multiplication are associative and commutative when defined.

>> No.9541934

But the irrational numbers are the result of computing a non-trivial limit. However, a computer cannot store an irrational number as a decimal expansion, but as I suggested, by axiomatically assuming the limit is tied to some sort of family of inductive processes.

>> No.9541938

Well now its up to you to prove zero is a negative number. Nice can of retarded worms you just opened for yourself.

>> No.9541957

The point is there is no limit, and 6/0 is not defined. I'm not arguing it's - infinity; that would be stupid.

>> No.9541964

I have an education, i just don't pretend to appreciate it like you do. You are a cuck because you blindly assume what you've been taught about math is valid. You cornered yourself down that path because you could not figure to advance with it without being told by someone else that you're a good boy who follows directions. You threw your ability to use math as a language under the bus in lieu of using math in only the ways an A grade on a test allowed you to figure them. You dont care whether the information is valid or invalid, you just care that people might be fooled into thinking you're smart because you have a piece of paper that certified you 100% retarded for paying into debt for something that exists freely.

Infinity is a vector. It has no rigorous value, it is unrelated to number values, it cannot be used to describe an amount of something, it cannot be reached. This is all you actually need to know about infinity, and if you can't infer how to use it by this description, you are not lacking knowledge, you are lacking ingenuity, creativity, logic, reason, and intelligence.

>> No.9541978

What is with the belligerent racism? We are all primates under God. Universalism and Jeshua, not elitism and racism ok. Praise Yahweh.

>> No.9542067

wanna bananna?

>> No.9542118

The best solution is saying "n/0 is undefined" because 0 is not a real number, just as much infinity is not a real number, and that all real numbers exist exclusively between the non-inclusive non-vector 0 defining nothing and the vector infinity defining something that might be everything. 0 is the left bracket and infinity is the right bracket surrounding the set of possible real numbers of which any real number can be added to this set.

It is also true enough that 0 and infinity have special similarities to each other when they're pretended to be treated as number values which otherwise don't exist with the other, real numbers:
>0+n = n, the result abandons 0 and retains n
>∞+n = ∞, the result abandons n and retains ∞
>[math]n_1 + n_2 = n_3[/math], with only real numbers, no specific value is retained.
>n/0 = ∞; nothing can go into something forever, invocation of the non-vector divisor results with the vector infinity.
>n/∞ = 0; everything forever can never go fully into something that isn't everything forever, even partially. Invocation of the infinite vector divisors results the non-vector 0.
>[math]\frac{n_1}{n_2} = n_3[/math]; with only real numbers, no specific value is retained.
>+0 && -0 have 0 discernable difference
>+∞ && -∞ have [math]\stackrel{+}{-}[/math]∞ discernable difference
>+n && -n have [math]\stackrel{+}{-}[/math](2n) discernable difference

>> No.9542135

>[math]n_1 - n_1 = 0[/math], any n minus itself is always 0 and any n plus any n is never ∞

>> No.9542169

>The best solution is saying "n/0 is undefined"
yes exactly

>because 0 is not a real number
lol no

>> No.9542176

0 isn't a number amount of something. Infinity isn't a number amount of something. They're pretty clearly related.

>> No.9542193

>0 isn't a number amount of something

>> No.9542361
File: 704 KB, 746x928, 1517286205440.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9542484

I have a room with chickens, ducks, and cows in it. I send you into the room and ask you to count how many animals are in the room. Use 0 in a substantial way to prove it is a countable amount by describing to me how many animals were in the room. Feel free to be as detailed as you wish.

>> No.9542520

>infinity of a vector
What? In what space? Over what field? You use a lot of pretty rhetoric there that sounds like it comes from Good Will Hunting which is distractingly entertaining, but what is wrong with what he said?

>The extended reals are not a field. Division by infinity is not multiplication by the inverse of infinity.

>> No.9542527

Can we at least agree that if the natural numbers are finite, then they have an upper bound? That there would be some maximum finite natural number?

Call this number m. What is m+1?

>> No.9542540

There are 5 chickens, 3 ducks, 4 cows, and 0 goats, so there are 12 animals in the room.

>> No.9542542

this is a good post which is why it was probably ignored by others on here.

I have obviously done math using the concept, but infinity really is more a philosophical idea and it gets used incorrectly all the time.

>> No.9542545

>because zero is not a real number

Wat? No. It's because the process of division is defined by a multiplication of the inverse, i.e. a/b = a*b^(-1), where b^(-1) is the number such that b*b^(-1) = 1. In the axiomatic definition of an inverse in any field, it's given that 0 does not possess an inverse (unless we're talking about the degenerate singleton field over the set {0}, in which case 0=1). But in the field of real numbers (R,+,•), 0 is an element of the reals and does not possess an inverse, so n*0^(-1) is not defined.

>> No.9542568

Why didn't you count the 0 ostriches. Where are the 0 crocodiles. I'm pretty sure there were 0 hippos. I know there were definitely 0 pandas in the room. There were 0 koalas, 0 peacocks, 0 giraffes, 0 lions, 0 pelicans, 0 buffalo, 0 elephants, 0 tigers, 0 moose, 0 platypus, 0 beavers, 0 salamanders, 0 geckos, 0 parrots, 0 pigs, 0 hedgehogs, 0 stegasaurus, 0 pterodactyls, 0 ichthyosaurs, 0 plankton, 0 squid, 0 whales, 0 sharks, 0 clams, 0 trout, 0 tuna...

I mean, i could go on, but it really seems like you let me down here!

>> No.9542585

There's a finite number of types of animals. I could take each type, enumerate the number of them in the room, add all these together, and get the total number of animals. You just picked a category with many subtypes to obscure things. Counting the total number of animals is no different when there are 0 of certain types than if I had 2 of each type marching side by side. either way I can count them by taking the number of each type and adding them.

>> No.9542588

>ok "finitists" whats the largest number
doesn't exist since you can infinitely keep creating new finite numbers by adding another finite number.

rounds reasonable right, "infinitist"?

>> No.9542597

Finitism doesn't require the belief in a largest number. Some would say that every natural number has a successor, but you can't have a set of all the natural numbers. Other's may say that you can express arbitrarily large numbers symbolically, but their "existence" is not a binary quality that suddenly stops after a greatest number.

>> No.9542686

Vector is reasonably well defined in simple words. google it if you think i somehow used it incorrectly. The direction is "more and more" or "unending". If you want to describe a property of the repeating 3's in 1/3 decimal as "infinite", you are saying that the 3's never stop. If the 3's never stop, there is no reason to believe there will ever be a sufficient enough amount of 3's to finitely equate "1/3", so 1/3 must always be greater than 0.333...
You can then obey normal finiteness in assuming that an arbitrary invocation of the number [math]0.\bar{3}[/math] can only have an arbatrarily large real number amount of countable 3's towards either providing a decimal accuracy requirement and therefore a definite end to the 3's, like an 8 digit calculator may only show 0.(seven 3's), or you can presume with arbitrary decimal accuracy that a repeating decimal lacks a definite element of accuracy whereby 1/3 need not necessarily be greater than 0.333..., but it must only approximate to 0.333... without actually equaling 0.333... as [math]\frac{1}{3} \approx 0.\bar{3}[/math], providing the understanding that there exists a margin of error. This further accomodates how [math]\frac{1}{3} × 3 = 1[/math] but [math]0.\bar{3} × 3 = 0.\bar{9}[/math], as the decimal values have lost an exactness element in translation. It also accomdates that because there exists no infinite number amount, a set must also be bounded by an arbatrarily large real number amount, which taken literally or even figuratively to describe the group of individual digits in a repeating decimal, provides that arithmetic performed on a set will also abide by finiteness, which ultimately disproves obviously flawed garbage nonsense like riemann zeta and ramanujan which otherwise required disingenuous "shifting" on "infinite sets" which cannot be similarly applied to finite sets. It also provides better analogies to zeno's paradoxes to make certain an infinite sum of 1/2^n cannot really reach 1.

>> No.9542709

>Vector is reasonably well defined in simple words.
Vectors are defined within a space and with a scalar field, with addition and multiplication. Can you lay these out for infinity?

>The direction is "more and more" or "unending".
get help

Every positive real number is greater than 1/3 - 0.333... . I demonstrated this here >>9541553. Do you believe that there's a real number that's greater than 0 but isn't positive? If not, you have to admit that:

1/3 - 0.333... = 0
1/3 - 0.333... + 0.333... = 0 + 0.333...
1/3 = 0.333...

>> No.9542711

They are infinitely countable. A largest real number is not required. A largest practical number may be required for some cases though. Septillionth is enough decimal accuracy to describe even once in a universal lifetime events such as that if every millisecond since the big bang were randomly assigned a number where the number assigned wasn't taken out of the pool of remaining numbers, there is less than [math]\frac{1}{1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000}[/math] probabilty any millsecond would have received the same random number as another millisecond.

Real upper bound? No reason to assume its necessary. Practical global upper bound? Septillion, maybe? Practical local upper bound? Most any digital media you've ever seen has gotten far enough with only 15 decimals of accuracy. Most cryptography has gotten far enough with only 256 digits. "Arbatrarily large" is well below the classical misinterpretation of infinity, yet even "arbatrarily large" is significantly larger than any yet utilized precision requirement. The classical "value" of infinity is honestly so fucking big that it could never matter, when most precision can be solved or described with only 15 significant digits.

>> No.9542715
File: 73 KB, 334x319, 1508566033111-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I suggested you google the word vector before replying but you didn't so fuck you?

>> No.9542719

>I have a room with chickens, ducks, and cows in it.
That would explain a lot

>> No.9542728

>A vector space (also called a linear space) is a collection of objects called vectors, which may be added together and multiplied ("scaled") by numbers, called scalars. Scalars are often taken to be real numbers, but there are also vector spaces with scalar multiplication by complex numbers, rational numbers, or generally any field. The operations of vector addition and scalar multiplication must satisfy certain requirements, called axioms, listed below.

>Euclidean vectors are an example of a vector space. They represent physical quantities such as forces: any two forces (of the same type) can be added to yield a third, and the multiplication of a force vector by a real multiplier is another force vector. In the same vein, but in a more geometric sense, vectors representing displacements in the plane or in three-dimensional space also form vector spaces. Vectors in vector spaces do not necessarily have to be arrow-like objects as they appear in the mentioned examples: vectors are regarded as abstract mathematical objects with particular properties, which in some cases can be visualized as arrows.

>Vector spaces are the subject of linear algebra and are well characterized by their dimension, which, roughly speaking, specifies the number of independent directions in the space. Infinite-dimensional vector spaces arise naturally in mathematical analysis, as function spaces, whose vectors are functions. These vector spaces are generally endowed with additional structure, which may be a topology, allowing the consideration of issues of proximity and continuity. Among these topologies, those that are defined by a norm or inner product are more commonly used, as having a notion of distance between two vectors. This is particularly the case of Banach spaces and Hilbert spaces, which are fundamental in mathematical analysis.

>> No.9542730

>Historically, the first ideas leading to vector spaces can be traced back as far as the 17th century's analytic geometry, matrices, systems of linear equations, and Euclidean vectors. The modern, more abstract treatment, first formulated by Giuseppe Peano in 1888, encompasses more general objects than Euclidean space, but much of the theory can be seen as an extension of classical geometric ideas like lines, planes and their higher-dimensional analogs.

>Today, vector spaces are applied throughout mathematics, science and engineering. They are the appropriate linear-algebraic notion to deal with systems of linear equations. They offer a framework for Fourier expansion, which is employed in image compression routines, and they provide an environment that can be used for solution techniques for partial differential equations. Furthermore, vector spaces furnish an abstract, coordinate-free way of dealing with geometrical and physical objects such as tensors. This in turn allows the examination of local properties of manifolds by linearization techniques. Vector spaces may be generalized in several ways, leading to more advanced notions in geometry and abstract algebra.

>> No.9542732

>I'm a crazy hermit, the post

>> No.9542734
File: 35 KB, 627x470, 1519147002259.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

fucking imbecile

>> No.9542737
File: 29 KB, 850x385, Vectors.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>A vector space over a field F is a set V together with two operations that satisfy the eight axioms listed below.

>The first operation, called vector addition or simply addition + : V × V → V, takes any two vectors v and w and assigns to them a third vector which is commonly written as v + w, and called the sum of these two vectors. (Note that the resultant vector is also an element of the set V ).

>The second operation, called scalar multiplication · : F × V → V, takes any scalar a and any vector v and gives another vector av. (Similarly, the vector av is an element of the set V ).

>Elements of V are commonly called vectors. >Elements of F are commonly called scalars.

>In the two examples above, the field is the field of the real numbers and the set of the vectors consists of the planar arrows with fixed starting point and of pairs of real numbers, respectively.

>To qualify as a vector space, the set V and the operations of addition and multiplication must adhere to a number of requirements called axioms.[1] In the list below, let u, v and w be arbitrary vectors in V, and a and b scalars in F.

>> No.9542741
File: 22 KB, 805x315, Still Vector.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9542742

>he's right though

>> No.9542744
File: 149 KB, 1080x1352, Screenshot_2018-02-24-22-29-23-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.9542749

Fuck, why did I buy all of these math textbooks when I already owned Merriam Webster?

>> No.9542750

A vector is an element of the set of vectors in a vector space. What's the problem?

>> No.9542752
File: 16 KB, 498x467, 1512340128839.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>citing wikipedia
>copy pasting directly from wikipedia
never change /sci/

>> No.9542755

He's completely correct. The fact that you don't know the definition of a vector space and he had to copy and paste it from somewhere for you is embarrassing.

>> No.9542758
File: 204 KB, 895x1319, Vector Yet Again.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Better? It's not like it's any different.

>> No.9542760

Actually, this is written under the assumption that it's a vector space over R, so really wikipedia is more accurate.

>> No.9542761
File: 7 KB, 420x420, b36.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Vector is not a space. Its a fucking word.

>> No.9542762

Vector is a word referring to objects belonging to a set of vectors of a vector space. ?

>> No.9542763

Vector is a word referring to a direction. Its. Literally. As. Simple. As. That.

>> No.9542764
File: 3 KB, 698x1284, just pretending.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

how long before pic related?

>> No.9542766

The word you're thinking of is "direction."

>> No.9542769

To be more exact its a direction and a value tending towards that direction. A direction like north or south can be static, while vector carries a notion of action or movement. It easily fits into a definition of infinity to allow that since an infinite value cannot occur, but incrementing may move unending towards greater numbers, that the direction is greater numbers on the numberline and and the movement is acknowledging reference frames from one exact finite recording of incrementing to the next. Its a fucking vector.

>> No.9542771

No. Vector.
Its a fucking word.

>> No.9542773

how will u express the weight of ur mum

>> No.9542775

Can't tell if you're trolling, crazy, or just uneducated. But a vector is just an element of a vector space, which is an abstraction of the notions of "magnitude and length." The "magnitudes" are the vectors and the "lengths" are the scalars. All you need to have a vector space is some sets with operations that satisfy the definitions of a vector space. In *any* vector space, vectors must behave like vectors. Infinity doesn't behave like a vector.

>> No.9542781

>The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that. There exists therefore something that is the truest, most complex, best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the limit of the existence of all reals and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever—and this we call Infinity.

>> No.9542786
File: 134 KB, 1080x1175, Screenshot_2018-02-24-22-50-46-1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Infinity literally is a vector.

Vector is also literally a general word that has no direct and sole defition to the autistic fucking walls of texts that have been pasted here, but since you goddamned retarded brainlet faggots only know wikipedia, heres some fucking wikipedia for you.

Die in a fucking fire.

>> No.9542787

Okay so on the math/science board, we usually are talking about math. What I am talking about is math. In math, we have a very specific and universal definition of vector. What you are talking about is nonsense. If you would like to talk about nonsense, that's okay.

>> No.9542788

>you goddamned retarded brainlet faggots only know wikipedia
refute this: >>9542758

I have plenty of LA books if you want me to keep going.

>> No.9542789

>vector carries a notion of action or movement.
oh bullshit
A vector can mean Area - it's just a direction and magnitude packaged together.


>> No.9542792

It doesn't even have to be magnitude and direction. R is a vector field over R. Sets of polynomials form vector fields. Since vector fields don't require an inner product, you don't even always have a concept of orthogonality.

>> No.9542793

What you are talking abot is Vector Space, a fucking unique thing that is not what i fucking said, cause all i fucking said was vector.

All i fucking said was vector. The truth is you're so goddamned fucking uneducated that you'd never heard the word outside of Vector Space, so you assume Vector Space is what i was talking about.

Shut the fuck up. Fuck off with your backpedalling.

>> No.9542794

Vectors are elements of vector space. That is what vector means in math. Nothing has been backpedalled.

>> No.9542795

Sorry, I meant "vector space" here, not "vector field".

Sorry for talking math on the math board, what should we do instead?

>> No.9542800

Put a fucking chair in your oven, turn it up to 500° and lock yourself in the closet. Fuck off.

>> No.9542801

get help

>> No.9542803

Luckily, 500 degrees = 140 degrees (in terms of vectors!) so he should be okay.

>> No.9542804

Help me get rid of those who can't think by taking yourself out of the equation.

>> No.9542806

get help

>> No.9542807

You're not helpful, i'm sure you realize this.

>> No.9542809

you need a professional

>> No.9542812

Even if i were as dumb as you to take "pointers" from a "professional", you not being a professional ends whatever retard bit you're going for, cause theres clearly no reason to take a suggestion from such a non-professional as yourself.

Stay booty blasted and infantile over not knowing what fucking words mean.

>> No.9542820

Look you don't need to use scare quotes we both know you meant (((professional))).

>Stay booty blasted and infantile over not knowing what fucking words mean.
I know exactly what vector means >>9542758

>> No.9542828

In the face of greatness, you will stop posting.

>> No.9542831

More like in the face of exhaustion. It's late on the east coast.

>> No.9542901

You do realize the time when your uncle played "where's the banana" while you were blindfolded wasn't a banana right?

>> No.9543003

>and please, we want to hear everything about how you solve ODEs
numerically with finite precision like physicists, engineers and everyone who contributes to society do

>> No.9544066
File: 556 KB, 720x742, 2017-04-23 21.02.40.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>> No.9544516

You assume an infinite number amount exists and that it is achieveably countable to have completed counting it in finite time. You are a brainlet.
This post clearly demonstrated the base ideology for how anyone would have ever originally assumed that there were never ending repeating 3's in the decimal of 1/3.
Never ending. Do you understand?
Your concept of the number "0.333..." lacks meaning and implies beyond it's means. The repetition in a repeating decimal doesn't mean an infinite value amount has been counted explicitly because an infinite value cannot be counted; it only means that there are more repetitions. You are not invoking any sensible finiteness and therefore not invoking any real sense of accuracy by simply providing the number [math]0.\bar{3}[/math], so you cannot hope to extract finite answers from equations involving it. You ask what number could exist between 0.333... and 1/3, and the clear and obvious answer is a number 0.333... with one more 3, in the very least. I ask you what number could exist between 0.9 and 1, and you answer 0.9 with one more 9, in the very least.

Do you understand?
What you mean to say when you say 1/3 = 0.333... is really [math]\frac{1}{3} = 0.\bar{3}_{\frac{1}{3}}[/math] taken arbitrarily, or [math]\frac{1}{3} = 0.\bar{3}_{r.(n-1)}[/math] taken finitely, where n is your decimal accuracy requirement inclusive of a rounding buffer.
The former allows you to properly use arithmetic in [math]0.\bar{3}_{\frac{1}{3}} × 3 = 0.\bar{9}_{\frac{3}{3}} = 0.\bar{9}_{1}[/math] where the whole 1 carries over and properly sums 1.0 in totality. The latter allows [math]0.\bar{3}_{r.(5-1)} × 3 = 0.\bar{9}_{r.(5-1)}[/math] which is the equivalent of 0.9999[9[math]\uparrow[/math] = 0.9999[[math]\leftarrow[/math]10 =
[0+1].0000 = 1.0

and can also be used
x = [math]0.\bar{9}_{r.(n-1)}[/math]
10x = [math]9.\bar{9}_{r.(n-2)}[/math]
10x - x = [math]8.\bar{9}_{r.(n-2)}1[/math]

>> No.9544702

>Being a high school brainlet

>> No.9544708

[math] \displaystyle
\frac{1}{3} = 0.\overline{3}= 0.1_3
[math] \displaystyle
3 \cdot 0.\overline{3} = 0.\overline{9} = 0.1_3 + 0.1_3 + 0.1_3 = 1_3 = 1

>> No.9544710

>finite time
it's math, not physics

>> No.9544735
File: 1.89 MB, 500x459, fuo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Working in a framework that tries to express uncountable quantities is unpleasing and in that sense infinity is problematic.
But it has nothing to do with "exists" in the naive sense argued about here.

The tragic thing is Wildberger fights for a good cause but in a polemtic uneducated but at the same time not-even-wrong (TM) way.

>> No.9544769

Yes, different bases are nice. Your point?

>> No.9544774

If something cannot be done, it cannot be done. This isn't physics, it's existence.

>> No.9545193

get help

>> No.9545203

what's the biggest prime number then retart?

>> No.9545277
File: 119 KB, 1278x990, 2018-02-02 14.21.00.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


You are the most broken record, my man. Maybe you're the one who truly needs to get help.

>> No.9545403

did you draw that just before eating the crayons?
just as retarded.
the pi=4 meme is a joke fyi

>> No.9545517

What is the angle of z°?
Remember, its a triangle.

>> No.9545524

it's a fucking cartoon
just like the 4=pi

>> No.9545539

I'm glad you're admitting infinity doesn't make sense as a value.

Dont know why you keep saying pi=4 though.

>> No.9545807

>The fabric of the Universe is discrete, akin to a cellular automata
Provide some evidence or shut the fuck up. Holding either fixed belief without evidence is a sign of mental illness.

>> No.9545936

[math]\sqrt 2[/math]

>> No.9546201

Thats just a complex number. No reason to believe it doesn't exist. No reason to believe you need more than 8 decimal places to use it, either.

>> No.9546638

It's not complex lmao. It's irrational.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.