>there ares set so big that the concept of describing them is impossible using set theoryhow is this not total bullshit?
"Describable" has a technical definition apart from the common "to describe" verb, maybe more than one definition. In fact it is easy to describe an "indescribable set", any set that fails that tecnhical definition
>>16855868but doesn't that break the stance of predicativism where you avoid defining something in a circular manner? like a set that contains set? if you just say "a set that isn't a set" how is that any different?
>>16855851They can be described and are in fact not indescribable, they are just given the name indescribable for vague historical reasons.
>>16855871No.NTA.
>>16855886>for vague historical reasonsOld stats prof would say "There is no such thing as 'significant' in statistics. Best you can do is 'measurably different from the null'".Technical jargon filters normies. Always has. Always will.
>>16855871Because instead of using informal english to talk about the mathematical objects like is done usually, there is a formal language (akin to a programming language, because the grammar is "formal") that encodes the mathematical theory and then informal english is used to talk about the system itself, this is called metamathematics. Therefore, you can talk about "indescribability" from the informal english level, but the defintion is precise, for example: "For a given collection Ω of formulas in the ϵ language of set theory with higher type variables and a unary predicate symbol they define an ordinal α to be Ω indescribable if for all sentences Φ in Ω and A ⊆ Vα, if there is a model of some subtheory (i wont write it exactly) that entails Φ, then there exists a smaller cardinal such that other specific subtheory (details omitted) entails Φ".The circularity would exist if we tried to use the "ϵ language of set theory" to write the same definition
>>16855851>higher set theory>category theory for its own sake>fractional derivatives>geometric algebra>type theory without algebraic topologywhat are some other meme "areas" of math that are overrepresented on the internet but have no real relevance in modern research?
>>16855892olympiad mathtopos theory (obv excluding research on shit like moduli spaces which technically are topoi but nobody would classify as part of topos theory)model theorywhatever FOTM slop math /sci/ will take its liking to in the coming months
>>16855886>The can be P and are in fact not not-P, they are just given the name "Q" for vague historical reasonWhat OP needs to understand that the notions P and Q exist separately, no one who uses Q says anything about P or not P, they just the same word with different meaning like in the correct english sentence "to record record profits": there is a verb and an adjective
>>16855930Dang. That is some ice-cold refreshing brain juice. Packed with thoughts and ideas.Biggest size you got please.
>>16855871>predicativismno-one gives a damn about that shit, he this declaration about predicativism i've just done is in fact impredicative
>>16855892>>16855905>w-why do I have this opinion?? B-because, I just do, okay???"Fuck off.
>>16856409nta but these areas quite literally are overrepresented online. On the other hand, analysts, differential geometers, people who study dynamical systems, etc. exist plentiful on campus but hardly have any presence online
