[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
/sci/ - Science & Math

File: euler-identity.png (155 KB, 2592x1620)
155 KB PNG
" Euler's identity is often cited as an example of deep mathematical beauty. The identity also links five fundamental mathematical constants. "

>The number 0.

Not a number. Could be considered a representation of infinity.

>The number 1.

A number but there are arguments it dosent have to be one.

>The number π (π = 3.141...).

Pi is not a number. But could be thought as a representation of infinity.

>The number e (e = 2.718...)

Again, "e" is not a number. Could be a representation of infinity.

>The number i.

'i' is not a number. Could be seen as a representation of infinity.

All this equation is saying is that infinity to the power of infinity plus infinity equals infinity.

Fuck this brainlet shit.
>>
k
>>
Well, if you get think of all those numbers as "representation of infinity" then I get to think of them as bunnies.

Euler's Identity is therefore a petting zoo and that makes me happy. Thanks, Euler!
>>
>>9862141
Norman, is that you?
>>
>>9862141
0/10
>>
>>9862156
>>9862162
reality is too much for you two brainlets to handle huh ?

Reality check : if there is such a number "pi" as you claim. Could you please write it down for me ? Thanks
>>
>>9862141
>0, e, pi, i are not complex numbers
lol
>>
>>9862173
Circumference/diameter
lmao ancient Egyptians had a better understanding of this stuff than u
>>
>>9862173
>the number 1. A number but there are arguments it dosent have to be one.

what arguments?
>>
>>9862176
define these "complex numbers " you speak of

>>9862181
prove to me circles even exist
>>
3 KB JPG
>>9862184
>>
>>9862192
not a proof. Can you even properly define what a circle even is ?
>>
>>9862184
>9862176 (You) #
>define these "complex numbers " you speak of
A complex number is an object of the form a+bi where a and b are real numbers and i is a symbol that has the property that i^2=-1. Complex numbers add, subtract, multiply, divide just like the elements of any other field.
>>9862184
>prove to me circles even exist
*draws a circle*

Prove to me the number 2 exists. Oh wait you cant because mathematics is inherently non-physical. Non of this matters anyway because all these symbols are STILL UNREASONABLY USEFUL to engineers and physicists. Mathematicians an eat my asshole. Gtfo.
>>
>>9862198
Set of points on a plane equidistant to another point. Laughably trivial.
>>
>>9862198
all points equidistant from some point
>>
>>9862202
>>9862204
Define a point
>>
>>9862198
yes
>>
>>9862206
define 'define'
>>
>>9862199
why do you think the bi part is referred to as imaginary ?
>>
>>9862206
okay
>>
>>9862206
"a geometric element that has zero dimensions and a definite location"
inb4 define location
inb4 define zero
inb4 define element
inb4 detention
You should probably learn a little bit of the English language or any language for that matter before tackling mathematics.
>>
>>9862211
You just used it. So what definition of define were you using when you used it just now?
>>
>>9862218
Prove that such a thing exists
>>
>>9862192
thats not a proof
>>
>>9862219
define "just"
>>
>>9862215
>why do you think the bi part is referred to as imaginary
Because that's what people arbitrarily decided to call it a couple hundred years ago or whatever. We could have called it the wacky part or the drunken part. It's no more "imaginary" than the "real" part. If you think they dont exist, try solving a higher order electrical circuit without using complex numbers.
>>
>>9862223
>>>/lit/
>>
>>9862228
Are you an illiterate nigger?
>>
>>9862230
So you can't?
>>
>>9862237
You right, I cant. But I make the assumption they exist and everything magically works out just fine for me.
>hurr what is bootstrapping
>>
>>9862233
define "nigger"
>>
>>9862237
I hope for your sake that you're trolling. If not, just know you're going down a philosophical dead-end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
>>
>>9862241
So you just assume that circles exists
>>
>we are allowed to slap a random letter to unsolvable equations and call it "math"

So why not just $\frac{1}{0}=n$ then?
>>
>>9862247
P much. It's worked out fine the last six thousand years or so.
>>
>>9862251
What if someone proved that points don't exists? Does all math just become wrong?
>>
>>9862249
If you create a system of axioms and definitions that are all perfectly comparable with each other and dont contradict each other, absolutely. That's literally what pure math is. The question is: do your axioms result in anything interesting/useful?
>>
>>9862255
We make the assumption they exist, so they exist basically by definition. They dont ***really*** exist in a physical sense u damn brainlet. No. It doesn't matter.
>>
>>9862255
Define "exist"
>>
>>9862259
No one is talking about existing in a physical sense, retard.
>>
>>9862278
Define "exist"
>>
>>9862278
Well it doesn't make any sense to disprove the existence of a made up concept, retard.
>>
>>9862280
To be in the state of existence
>>
>>9862285
Define "existence"
>>
>>9862284
Sure it does. I can disprove the existence of a natural number which is greater than all other natural numbers
>>
>>9862290
I guess that settles it then. All of math is wrong and ur a genius.
>>
>>9862290
>I can disprove the existence of a natural number which is greater than all other natural numbers
Okay then do it. Remember to define N.
>hurr what if someone proves fractions dont exist
>>
You know your retarded theory is retarded when it cant accommodate fucking c i r c l e s
>>
>>9862357
>when you're maths are so shit CIRCLES are a bewilderment
>>
File: 1528987076243.png (117 KB, 220x192)
117 KB PNG
>>9862287
define "define".
define "existence".
define "define "existence"".
>>
>>9862393
I mean, before I was just making fun of OP doing it, but I'm pretty sure he has legitimately no concept of what he's saying in this case. What does it mean for the concept of a point, which is nothing but an abstract tool of mathematical convenience, to exist or not exist? It exists because it's useful, and in order for it to stop existing it would need to stop being useful, which isn't going to happen
>>
>>9862431
Define "I"
Define "mean"
Define "before"
Define "was"
Define "just"
Define "making"
Define "fun"
Define "of"
Define "op"
Define "doing"
Define "it"
Define "but"
Define "I'm"
Define "pretty"
Define "sure"
Define "he"
Define "has"
Define "legitimately"
Define "no"
Define "concept"
Define "what"
Define "he's"
Define "saying"
Define "in"
Define "this"
Define "case"
Define "what"
Define "does"
Define "it"
Define "mean"
Define "for"
Define "the"
Define "a"
Define "point"
Define "which"
Define "is"
Define "nothing"
Define "an"
Define "abstract"
Define "tool"
Define "mathematical"
Define "convenience"
Define "to"
Define "exist"
Define "or"
Define "not"
Define "exist"
Define "it"
Define "exists"
Define "because"
Define "it's"
Define "useful"
Define "and"
Define "order"
Define "stop"
Define "existing"
Define "would"
Define "need"
Define "being"
Define "isn't"
Define "going"
Define "happen"
>>
>>9862532
Oh, you're OP. Sorry I acted like you were a rational human being for a second there
>>
>>9862536
Rational human beings don't use words they can't define
>>
>>9862540
Is that the definition of a rational human being? Are you sure? I think you should dive more in depth into that definition for me.
>>
>>9862540
This happens when a babby takes his first philosophy class.
>>
>>9862543
No, that's not the definition of a rational human being, it's just a property of a rational human being
>>
>>9862564
Get to defining then, bitch. Why don't I see you defining right now?
>>
>>9862173
>hurr durr, if you can't write it down it's not a number
please, write me the largest known prime in cursive on toilet paper or else it is not a number
>>
File: 1520888003355s.jpg (6 KB, 249x250)
6 KB JPG
>>
This hardocore baiting only ever hurts me on /sci/. Because a tiny part of me thinks there may well be someone who thinks this type of shit and my heart just can't take it.
I am weak.
>>
>>9862571
how are basic operations like arithmetic even performed with these "numbers" ? .There isnt even enough space in the universe to actually attempt to write "pi" out. e,pi,rad 2 are literal representations of infinity
>>
>>9862685
Who are you?
>>
>>9862571
Ah ok, I forgot that the definition of a number is "something that can be written down on a roll of toilet paper"
>>
>>9862709
You must not be OP then, because he's very strict about definitions and that is the one definition of a number he accepts
>>
>>9862709
If you don't know the whole number, then how can you be sure that it is a number? What if after the 1000000000000000000000th decimal place it starts to to include non-numeral characters?
>>
>>9862720
Any number base 11 or higher has non-numeric characters so it could still be a number
>>
>>9862703
You know who I am.
Say my name.
>>
operations with these infinities is an utter joke.
Debunk this

https://youtu.be/4DNlEq0ZrTo?t=4m28s
>>
>>9862723
N-NO
BRUCE...
>>
can anyone here write down what pi * e is ?
Thank you
>>
>>9862723
Cringe
>>
>>9862736
Cringe
>>
>>9862740
based

>>9862736
cringe
>>
OP be honest
>>9862746 it's you isn't it
>>
genuine question , why do numbers like sqrt(19) trigger you ultrafinists this much?
>>
>>9862754
You, sir, have been deluded to believe the stuff people teach you. I will give you my opinions

1. sqrt(19) does not exist as a number; it is an "object" that is specified to be the zero of the polynomial x^2 - 19, if it exists. Note that real numbers CANNOT be defined ALGEBRAICALLY (from the rational numbers, at least!); the simple way to explain square roots of non-squares is through extension fields.

2. Infinite sets do not make sense in its current framework. Surely, do you expect a "computer" to search for objects in infinite sets in a finite amount of time? I find that natural numbers are NOT sets, but rather "landscapes". It is, in my humble opinion, IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a full sequence of natural numbers; rather, it is possible to come up with specifications of a natural number. Just because you give specifications does not mean you can list all the possible elements in the "set" of natural numbers. As Kronecker said, "the natural numbers are the work of God; the rest are the work of man".

3. Saying that "infinity" exists is like saying that ghosts are real; are they? Are they not? We can only accept that such a landscape MAY exist, but it is a big "may". Will we ever know? Possibly, possibly not; no one knows.
>>
>>9862757
Woah
>>
>>9862757
stop posting wildberger
>>
>>9862757
So this is the power of autism?
>>
>>9862759
>>9862769
>>9862776

a total of three replies and not one even comes close to addressing nor even refuting the contents of my post. Literally brainlet behavior
>>
File: FDAA.png (531 KB, 990x648)
531 KB PNG
>>
File: Untitled.png (12 KB, 451x497)
12 KB PNG
>>9862778
>>9862757
>sqrt(19) does not exist as a number
y tho. It can be added to any other number; multiplies, divides, subtracts, adds the same way.
>Note that real numbers CANNOT be defined ALGEBRAICALLY
Why?
>the simple way to explain square roots of non-squares is through extension fields.
Just construct it nigga like damn lmao. Phythagoras wasn't as lost as you. Who give a fuck about infinite sets. Are you really saying the value we assign the length of the hypotenuse of an isosceles isn't a number?
>>
>>9862778
Cringe
>>
>>9862796
>y tho. It can be added to any other number; multiplies, divides, subtracts, adds the same way.

>>
>>9862812
That would be the most compact form of that particular number. Pi and rad2 are well defined objects that look like, smell like, behave like numbers. We know how to add those. The value is approximately four and a half. :^)
>>
>>9862816
could you finish it please ?
>>
>>9862816
>actually thinking that objects are numbers
>>
>>9862827
Define number
>>
>>9862824
No. It's probably irrational. Irrational numbers cant be written down, fortunately that's not a requirement of being a number.
>>
>>9862827
Lots of objects are numbers, anon. Including pi and sqrt2.
>>
>>9862834
its irrational to believe in irrational numbers hence the name. Arent numbers and could be thought of as representations of infinity if it cannot be written down within the space in this universe. pi + rad2 is equivalent to infinity + infinity
>>
90 replies on such a shit tier bait wtf happened to this board
>>
>>9862845
You just replied too, retard
>>
>>9862835
then do you mind writing down what these 'numbers' represent numerically? dont forget to finish writing them out btw
>>
>>9862841
>its irrational to believe in irrational numbers hence the name
yes and to work with natural numbers you have to strip naked like god intended
>>
>>9862841
>its irrational to believe in irrational numbers hence the name
???????????????
You're like one of those stormniggers whose bone to pick with relativity is that it promotes cultural relativity.
>>
>>9862845
This is literally the most constructive thread on /sci/ right now and I'm not saying this as a good thing
>>
>>9862845
rest of this board is filled with IQ shitposts. At least there are reasonable ideas being discussed here.
>>
>>9862848
pi represents the ratio of circumference to diameter of any circle.
sqrt(2) is the ratio of a right isosceles's hypotenuse to one of its legs.

That's their definitions. Their numerical approximations can be obtain from these elementary principles. I won't spoon-feed you how.
>>
>>9862858
prove to me circles exist
>>
>>9862859
Prove to me YOU exist.
>>
>>9862862
thats not a proof
>>
>>9862869
t. is confused by c i r c l e s
The rest of us will carry on with our extremely effective tool for evaluating the physical world around us, you can continue getting mad about the non existence of platonic whatever.
>>
>>9862869
prove it's not a proof you faggot
>>
>>9862878
so you cant prove that circles exist ?
>>
>>9862886
No, I assume they exist: :^)
>>
>>9862889
Fuck you
>>
>>9862890
Rude
>>
>>9862890
Define "fuck you"
>>
>>9862849

Op I refuse to believe this many people got hit with the wildberger bait, is it just you in here
>>
>>9862926
110 / 5 / 23

23 posters btw
>>
File: 20180622155708.jpg (97 KB, 793x774)
97 KB JPG
>>9862141
Get with the fucking times.
>>
>>9862219
you tell me
>>
>>9862173
Its written down in formula provided by OP. You're welcome.
>>
>>9862141
>0 could be considered a representation of infinity
um no sweaty

Delete Post: [File Only] Style: