If maths under the current axioms is so useful in everything, why not invent new axioms and make maths 2?I mean the current axioms are pretty random, so I bet some different axioms will be as successful as the current ones
>>16992259>If maths under the current axioms is so useful in everything, why not invent new axioms and make maths 2?To make it useless?
>>16992259we cant do this because it would be anti semitic to do so.also the 4th line isnt strictly true in all cases.
>>16992265>we can't prove x theorem because you can prove it's unprobablejust get new axioms and prove it>you can't solve the 3 body problem exactly because there's no analytic solutionjust change the axioms so that the solution exists
>>16992278That's essentially what mathematicians have been doing for the past 2 centuries but without actually throwing out the old findings.
>>16992259>>16992278there are plenty of alternative foundations and yes, it's well known that changing your foundation changes what's provable.we don't do that for a few reasons.firstly, human beings have an intellectual limit. when you change your foundation, it's like changing the foundation of a skyscraper. you can't do it without bringing the whole thing down. we have to specialize and internalize a single foundation to be able to do anything useful, because doing everything from first principles is well beyond our biological capacity.now you may wonder then, well what if we diversified? what if only some mathematicians were in ZFC, and others were in other foundational systems? and the answer to that is you just end up tower of babeling mathematics. a proof structure found in some herropian topological axiom-space that doesn't map cleanly to ZFC is going to be completely incomprehensible to people working in ZFC. right now we basically only have two foundations with any kind of real adoption, ZFC and TT. type theorists speak absolute nonsense and their work is generally completely fucking useless for people working in ZFC. you want to make that even worse?so in short OP, the answer is: because we're fucking retarded. even the smartest among us are no better than stupid little monkeys smearing feces on a blackboard.
>>16992259I guess I'll have to do it, expect a trailer on 2027, Oct 8th
>>16992324skill issue
The definition of infinity is that it is how many natural numbers there are. You can take those infinite natural numbers and slice them into an infinite number of infinite sets, each of which can then be sliced the same way ad infinitum.
>>16992352>The definition of infinity is that it is how many natural numbers there are. are you posting this bullshit repeatedly? I swear I saw it posted before.
>>16992259So, basically, to sum it up: 2b, or not 2b, that is the question
>>16992345sure, but it is species wide, so what the hell do we do but cope?
>>16992700yeah, he does that, even on /x/ and i think at least once on /lit/, don't worry about it, it's the jannies problem, not yours, you have a good life to live, the jannies no so much so...
