Goldbach Conjecture resolved

[Anonymous No.9898799]

You can all go home now

[Anonymous No.9898807]

>>9898799
"Muh finite numbers in the known universe". This garbage is what happens when a physicist tries to reason in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.9898824]

>>9898799
>this thread again

[Anonymous No.9899024]

>>9898799
>we know that...

[Anonymous No.9899218]

>>9898799
>If we believe in
GTFO faith-based fgt pls

[Anonymous No.9899240]

>>9898799
>If we believe
>We know

lmao, if you can come with a prime k that is not larger than z there are more than 2^k prime numbers that are larger than z

[Anonymous No.9899722]

>>9898799
Just get a bigger universe

[Anonymous No.9899747]

>>9898799
>it is impossible to write down a prime bigger than z
>but it's possible to write down 2z, which is larger than this prime

[Anonymous No.9899760]

>In fact it is strongly f𝘢lse.

can we meme this into being a thing it sounds so funny

[Anonymous No.9899762]

>>9898799
>Goldbach
you can't make this shit up

[Anonymous No.9899803]

>No way!!

[Anonymous No.9899811]

>>9899747
Wildsperger is such a nitwit.

[Anonymous No.9899837]

>If it were true

[Anonymous No.9899925]

>>9898799
>we can't write this number down
so? a numbers existence isn't predicated on if one can write it down or not

[Anonymous No.9899955]

>>9898799
>z can't be WRITTEN as the sum of 2 primes
I'm Goldbach and can confirm this.
I originally wrote it as a joke to see if Euler would catch the technicality that invalidated my conjecture.
It got out of hand as Euler took it seriously and started to get famous.

[Anonymous No.9900481]

>>9898799
who does this big idiot think he is?

[Anonymous No.9900507]

>>9898807
he isn't a physicist. he did his BSc at the University of Toronto and he got his PhD from Yale; both degrees were in math. Where did you get your math PhD from, bud?

[Anonymous No.9902178]

>>9900507
Argument to authority. Fallacious. Good fucking going OP you really showed us. You're stupid, good day.

[Anonymous No.9902207]

>>9899955
Top kek

[Anonymous No.9902281]

>>9902178
>accuse wildberger of being a physicist
>get btfo
>go on an autistic spergout

[Anonymous No.9902325]

How ? What is there to tell you 2 /\1000 - 1 isn't prime ?

[Anonymous No.9902356]

>>9902325
>What is there to tell you 2 /\1000 - 1 isn't prime ?

Do you mean
>2[triangle]1000 - 1
or
>(2 to the power of 1000) - 1
?

We know 2^1000 - 1 isn't prime because we checked, and it isn't.

Wildberger believes that 2[triangle]1000 - 1 can't be prime because according to him, *it isn't a number* - he thinks that numbers only exist if you write them down, and so any number bigger than about 10^10^10^10 doesn't exist because the Universe isn't big enough to contain it fully written out.

[Anonymous No.9902368]

>>9902356
But isn't 2[triangle]1000 -1 a way to write the number down ?

It's like saying 10 is the biggest number because you can't use your fingers to count higher than 10.

[Anonymous No.9902436]

>>9902368
His point is that these numbers are exceptions. You can write down certain gigantic numbers like 10^10^10^10^10... easily, but the vast majority of the numbers between 0 and said numbers you will never be able to express.

[Anonymous No.9902441]

>>9899955
checked and kek'd

[Anonymous No.9902449]

>>9902436
No, it's not that. It's that Wildberger doesn't think a number really "counts" unless you could literally construct it the hard way, by starting at 0 and adding 1 until you get there. ("could" being a bit ... logically fuzzy in that sentence. Ultrafinitism isn't really defined in any mathematically rigorous way.)

[Anonymous No.9903329]

>>9902449
Can't you come up with a new numerical system in which it becomes possible to write the number down ?

For example, suppose every chinese character in existence were to stand for a number. Since there are 50 000 characters, you'd be able to write any number from 0 to 50 000 in one symbol, and with n symbols you can write a number up to 50 000^n, I'm not bother doing the math but it's probably enough to represent 10^10^10^10 in our Universe.

You could probably represent a number as an arrangement of symbols in 3d space and save space that way.

[Anonymous No.9903375]

>>9903329
But the question is not one of representing numbers in some fashion but working with them. It doesn't matter how we write down "large" numbers, we'll never factor them for instance.

[Anonymous No.9903643]

>>9902449
>Ultrafinitism isn't really defined in any mathematically rigorous way.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MY GODDDDDDDDDDDDDD *EXPLOSIONS AND WEED FLY ACROSS SCREEN*

[Anonymous No.9903703]

>>9898799
Wildberger is probably smarter than me and is certainly more accomplished but how can he be so retarded?

[Anonymous No.9903747]

>>9898799

wildberger deliberately conflates truth with feasibility and it's really annoying

[Anonymous No.9903752]

>>9903747
To consider them to be the one and the same is the only reasonable perspective.