That we will never possibly be able to know the truth about the origin of our universe? Just think about it, for any subgroup, you cant possibly use the properties and objects into this subgroup to explain the properties and objects corresponding to the parent group, it is just not possible.
>>16868653Gödel already proved math is joke and will never get us to any truth, just “close enough” I.e. enough to make sure Jews keep the goyim under their thumb with superior technology
>>16868653>objects corresponding to the parent groupI put some objects in the parent subgroup called your mom
>>16868653I never admitted such a position. I do not admit the veracity of the nature of the continuum derived of the fallacious "empty" set theory. Its adherence, as ye doth protest, confirms the malaise of the modernity possessed most certainty of the nihilism that preceeds. No, no set it empty, the form is of the form, the whole is encoded on the unit, the precision of the nothing balance the explosion of the infinite in every set.MMP provides a bridge that lets those indoctrinated by the real number deception back to the realm of modest exactness, instead of pompous claims at possessing the infinite
>>16868653nigga, all those number systems in your gayass post are all defined in terms of the natural numbers
>>16868653When I was probably 10. I didn't fully understand it, but even back then in the 90s the pop physicists made it fairly apparent that we can't see back to the beginning.Now with all the recent jwst discoveries it just makes their laughable ignorance so much more poingnant.
>>16868653Maybe the universe is finite and maybe the universe stops expanding. Then we simply travel to the edge of the universe and cut a hole in the wall to access the parent group.
>>16868653This Euler diagram is wrong about irrational numbers, the dark green area. It seems to imply that there are real numbers that are neither rational nor irrational in the light green area. Actually, irrational numbers belong to both the light and dark green areas
>>16868696Well, yeah, i didnt use the picture because of its content regarding numerical groups, but because of its content regarding group theory.
>>16868829Natural numbers aren't a group.
>>16868654dumb bot go back
>>16868837Yes they are.
Two big things one spinning one way and one spinning the other which creates static electricity which has nothing to discharge itself against except other electricity which makes a light so dense that it becomes matter which then explodes away in every direction and there you go the mechanics of creation you're welcome enjoy the nobel prize
>>16868655do objects of measure zero count?
>>16868673>No, no set it empty, the form is of the form, the whole is encoded on the unit, the precision of the nothing balance the explosion of the infinite in every set.is that how you cope with having no brain in that skull of yours?
>>16868653>That we will never possibly be able to know the truth about the origin of our universe?It is ex nihilo, or nothingness. Any explanation beyond that is unscientific and falls under the purview of other studies.An intermediary state existed between nothingness and the Big Bang, which is discussed here:https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0703055
>>16868653Why are irrational numbers inside a bubble?I = R - Q
>>16869268It is simply by virtue of reason alone. There is an infinite property inside the nothingness, just as there is a null property inside the infinite. There is no truer measure of exactness than the nothingness, every other quantity has more spread and variance about the number line, even the infintessimal. The infinite, on the otherhand, is quite the opposite, you will never be able to find its exact location on the number line, no matter how many digits you tack on the back of it.Each piece only tells half the story, and they balance each other out. Now, the nothingness and the infinite are the two sides of the same continuum. The "empty set" filled with infinite nothingness.how it twists in on itself is the action of the polynumber system and how the unity is formed, contusions of the infinite nothing upon the infinite nothing
wasn't calculus invented to answer all these sorts of questions?you just accept limits exist and move onI dont get where the source of the conflict is
>>16869404https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NlI4No3s0Mmusic is perfectly in tune using commensurate ratios. using 2^(7/12) in exchange for 3/2 is not only slightly out of tune, but cascades the petering out of the instruments timbre, its harmonic overtones as the inner vibrations dont constructively interfere correctly into overtones.the real number system, and its limits are good enough attitude, leaves a lack of appreciation in music
I hate you disoriented babbling schizos so fucking much
>>16869115It's literally one of the first definitions you're supposed to learn, you goddamn retard.
>>16868654No, he proved that for an axiomatic system. Math can be non axiomatic
>>16868653idk why retards keep conflating mathematical concepts with metaphysics. Anyway, about your pic I have literally woken up at night thinking about how we will probably never know what a single non-computable real number literally looks like and it makes me feel uneasy but then I go back to sleep again.
>>16868696I think it was misnamed. Dark green should be real but indescribable. Whereas light green real but describable (eg. pi, e, square roots, etc.)
>>16869574Can we know what Pi literally looks like? We know truncations and we know indirect definitions. We cant never know indirect definitions of uncomputable or indescribable numbers, but if we take any finite string of digits wouldn't there be infinite uncomputable numbers with said string as a truncation? I dont get it, what do you mean by "what a number literally looks like"?
>>16868696what if we just haven't discovered such numbers yet?
>>16869638>what if we just haven't discovered such numbers yet?See: >>16869343
>>16869634So Wildberger is correct?
>>16869747What are Wildebenegg claims in this context?
>>16869634With Pi and other irrational numbers you can literally see how they look like up to a certain precision. This is not even possible with uncomputable numbers.
>>16870023That real numbers were a mistake
>>16870167>how they look like up to a certain precisionSo given a finite decimal there isn't an infinity of uncomputable numbers with said beginning? This is what i'm trying to understand. If you have only 0.123 and know they are the first digits of an irrational number and nothing else, you know nothing about the next digit. This is what you mean? Because at least i know it begins with 0.123. I read that even with Chaitin constant you can know some of the few digits and the fact that it its between 0 and 1. Saying you don't know a number entails for example saying you dont even know in what order of magntitude they belong. But this was already true of natural numbers, we will never know almost all of them.
>>16870214>That real numbers were a mistakeNothing in >>16869634 purport such an extremist view. Lack of knowledge about most of very large (in magnitude) and very small numbers is a fact of life, why would lack of knowledge about very long numbers (possibly infinite in digits) be any different?
>>16870219Because a real number is defined as the limit of an infinite sequence of rational numbers. Even when such a limit doesn’t exist in terms of rationals, the sequence takes the spot of a real number to fill gaps in the continuum. It’s a circular definition. Limit doesn’t exist? No problem, let the sequence itself fill the gap of a real.
>>16868654Godel only showed that, in order to show something is true, in addition to defining the thing itself, you must include some set of instructions for decoding the definition of the thing, which cannot be part of the definition of thing itself. Thus, every systemic model requires some information to exist that is outside of it in order to define itself completely, otherwise, it can only give an incomplete description. This is because, even if a model contains all the information we need it to contain, we won't know how to make heads or tails of any of it if all we have is the model and nothing providing the context we need so we can understand it.People that think godel showed math is incomplete or some shit are either trolling, retarded, or both.
>>16870237>Even when such a limit doesn’t exist in terms of rationalsBut every term in the sequence is a rational number. If we have some preconceived notion about what a number ought to be, mathematics is not about that. We had a preconceived notion about what triangles were but then Lobachevski, Riemann, Einstein showed that mathematics or even physics don't abhor formal deviations from that prejudice about triangles, just like Torricelli showed that "nature" doesn't really abhors atmospheric vacuum like some ancient greeks believed. Being uncomfortable about calling some set of entities "numbers" is legitimate, like Descartes being uncomfortable with complex numbers. But the heart of matter is that mathematicians study these entities wether they are really (or should we really call them) numbers or not.>It’s a circular definition. Limit doesn’t exist? No problem, let the sequence itself fill the gap of a real.There is not an absolute definition of a what a limit (convergence) should mean either. The limits you are talking about involve the euclidean norm, but there is a notion of limit where every relevant sequence converges (every limit exists in Q), and some other notions like ultrametric and p-adic norms. This plurality shows that we study real numbers as a logical possibility more than as a logical necessity.
>>16870303>This plurality shows that we study real numbers as a logical possibility more than as a logical necessity.History says otherwise. We study real numbers because engineers and physicists, after Fourier shot a bazooka at what was known of the calculus of functions, were able to produce concrete results with Fourier analysis despite objections from every mathematician at the time. We’re really studying real numbers because engineers and physicists left us no choice, otherwise how would we explain the real life results they’re able to make?
>>16870312I wouldn't use that line of argument against Wildberger objections. Did he ever disagree with the usefulness of Fourier analysis? And the gist of your post is that mathematicians ended up studying real numbers out of historical and practical, maybe even epistemological necessities. But that doens't mean logical necessity. Similar thing happened historically with first-order logic, but nowadays logicians talk about logical anti-exceptionalism. That's what i mean about logical possibility instead of necessity.
>>16870237you are going to have an aneurism with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93%C4%8Cech_compactification
