1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1Proove it.You can't sum an "infinite" sequence of numbers because you would never be able to complete the computation. Simple as.
>>17032892This is the way that mathematicians deal with paradoxes involving infinity, they always ignore one side and focus on the other, just to preserve their dogmatic belief. For example, we can map the even integers to the even integers and have the odd integers left over, so it seems as if there are more positive integers than even integers. But we can also map all positive integers n to 2n, so it seems as if the sets are equal in size. Rather than accepting the fact that these cases are contradictory, mathematicians focus on the latter case in which the sets are equal. This theme happens every single time. And the excuse is always “infinity works in mysterious ways”.In this case it’s “the gap is always cut in half” and “the process is taken to infinity”Infinitists reject the first assumption in favor of the latter. But it’s more natural to believe that one can cut things in half than to believe that we can magically take things “to infinity”.
>>17032901That's a shame. It seems to me that ONE (1) single paradox involving infinity should make them question the validity of it in the first place.I don't know how they say "take the process to infinity" and keep a straight face lmao. That is literally magic.
>>17032906niggas will look at you with a straight face and say “100% of all numbers are too big to be written down” lmao
What it is doing is just this, as the number of times you fill in just the half of what is remaining approaches infinity, it gets infnitely close to 1
>>17032906The paradoxes only arise when your axioms are all centered around finite arithmetic. Yes set theory is fucking retarded. No, the problem isn't infinity. Yes mathematics is highly dogmatic and the dogma isn't even remotely close to being as general as mathematicians would like it to be.
(I - \hat{A})^{-1}
>>17032932But reasonably infinitely close to 1 and 1 cannot be the same thing
>>17032994lim X = 1 does not mean it is equal to one, it means X gets arbitrarily close to 1.
Unity...The System as a Whole Unit.. 1
Infinity can be bounded. Pi a circle 360° □4Eva
>>17032996Which is ok as long as you never substitute one with the other
>>17032892that's why the sums of such sequences are defined by their limit.
>>17032892This is why I hate math.It insists on being rigorous but then you get shit like 0.999 = 1. Or Pi being infinite, but then again, I guess this universe is itself niggerlicious because we can measure ratio to Planck's length but beyond that you can just shrug. Fuck god or whoever created this shit.
>>17032932>approaches infinityBut you can't approach infinity, it's infinite...
>>17032892>multiply whole sequence by 2>get 1+[the same exact sequence]>2x=1+x>solve for xWas that so difficult?
>>17033026>multiply by 2Where does that 2 come from, or multiplication?Anon only posted fractions, addition and sum of 1.
>>17033034I multiplied the sequence by 2. It's fine though since I subtracted the sequence from the result to undo that multiplcation.
>>17032892Frogposters should be strung up
>>17033026x=0.999...
>>17032892>make up some infinity bullshit like 0.999....>claim somehow that it's equal to 1>can you see 1 in 0.999... I can't.>trust me bro, it's there>be fancy and say something about limits>how can infinity have limitsDo mathfags really?
>>17033073You can always fit a number between two real numbersCan you fit a number between 0.999... and 1? No? That means 0.999... and 1 are not two real numbers, so they must be the same.
>>17033080More like 0.999... is not real. I have 1 apple. Not 0.999..... apple.
>>17033080>Can you fit a number between 0.999... and 1?yes, 0.000.....1>noooOOOO you can't do that!! only I AM ALLOWED to abuse infinities
>>17033084You can't fit any number between 0.000.....1 and 0, so they are the same>>17033081>I have pi apples...does it mean pi is not real either?
>>17032892[math]\boxed{0 < p < 1} \\1 = p + (1-p) ~~~~~~ \overset{1}{ \overbrace{[=====p=====|==(1-p)==]}} \\ \text{divide p using x} ~~~~~~ \overset{1}{ \overbrace{ \underset{p}{[ \underbrace{=====x=====|==(p-x)==}]} ~~ + ~~ (1-p)}} \\\\\text{solve x and (p-x), when length ratios must be the same} \\\dfrac{x}{p-x}= \dfrac{p}{1-p} \Rightarrow x- xp = p^2 - xp \Rightarrow \underline{x=p^2} \Rightarrow \underline{(p-x)=p(1-p)} \\\overset{1}{ \overbrace{ \underset{p}{[ \underbrace{=====p^2=====|==p(1-p)==}]} ~~ + ~~ (1-p)}} \\\\\overset{1}{ \overbrace{ \underset{p^2}{[ \underbrace{=====p^3=====|==p^2(1-p)==}]} ~~+ p(1-p)+(1-p)}} \\\overset{1}{ \overbrace{ \underset{p^3}{[ \underbrace{=====p^4=====|==p^3(1-p)==}]} ~~+ p^2(1-p)+p(1-p)+(1-p)}} \\(1-p)+p(1-p)+p^2(1-p)+p^3(1-p)+ \cdots =1 ~~~~ \left | ~ \times \frac{1}{1-p} \right . \\1+p+p^2+p^3+ \cdots = \dfrac{1}{1-p}[/math]
>>170330920 = 0.000....000.000....010.000....02...0.000....090.000....1
>>17033092>does it mean pi is not real either?Pi stops at Planck length.
>>17033103can be disproven with a computer simulation
>>17033099>0.000....01>0.000....1They are the same
>>17033080>Can you fit a country between Mongolia and Russia? No? That means Mongolia and Russia are not two real countries, so they must be the same.
>>17032892does 1/2 + s/2 = s resolve your mental problem with infinte sums ?
>>17032892VERY anti semitic thread>>17033054seething migger
>>17032892>>17032901>>17032906You can't just talk about infinity and limits without defining those terms. As they are defined (and the definitions seem perfectly rational), this sum does equal 1.>>17033258>VERY anti semitic threadyes, yes... Bolzano (catholic priest), Cauchy (catholic; family and him persecuted by revolutionaries) and Weierstrass (catholic Rhinelander family) just screams jewish conspiracy
>>17033424globoabrahomo
>>17032892Damned straight.OP is doing GOD's work.Soon we of the ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH will retake the HOLY LAND of MATHEMATICS!FOR THE GLORY OF GOD!And all those GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES will answer for their CANTOR INDUCED SINS against mathematics! May they all burn in the discrete flames of finite HELL!Sharpen your swords! WE MARCH!WE MARCH WITH GOD ON OUR SIDE!Say it with me Bothers and Sisters!DEUS VULT!DEUS VULT!DEUS VULT!
>>17033258This is some sort of politics-brained cult of personality psychosis spilling over from another board, I take it?
>>17032892You know particle and wave duality? This is same shit but for math.Both reality and math are tranny schizo like that.
>>17032892In binary, given a unique additive identity and allowing finite induction:1.000... - 0.111... = 0.000... The next bit of the answer is always 01 = 1.000... and 0 = 0.000... from how integers are defined in positional notation: the integer itself followed by as many place holder zeros as you need (or can get to).1 - 0.111... = 0 by substitution.1 = 0.111... from the additive identity.0.111... = 1 by symmetry.
>>17033095Top 1 is shorter than your second 1 in the braces. 1 ≠ 1?
>>17033703Never trust a wall of latex.
>>17032892Exactly. You just can get arbitrary close. Cantor killed math when he defined that actual infinity exists.
>>17033852If math back then was killed by a definition, math must have really sucked ass back then, no?
>>17033856Ups i double replied and wanted to delete the old one but you already replied.>>17033856No thats the point, it sucked ever since. It was great but then everyone was sucked into making set theory the basis which killed it. Jewish networking and the media and their money did it. Similar to physics.
>>17032901Fpwphttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number
>>17033859How can something that was great be killed by a definition? (Also Cantor wasn't a jew, he was a Russian anchor baby, who pretended to have old, dead, jewish relatives in Denmark in order to get a job in academia, like Elizabeth Warren did with cherokees; but that's a cavil; how can something that was great be killed by a definition?)
>>17033865>Also Cantor wasn't a jew, he was a Russian anchor babyTo first make this clear, he wasnt ethnically russian in any way. His father was a jew who converted to protestantism. His mother was from the german (austrain to be more specific) minority in russia, in no way russian. Her name was Maria Anna Böhm thats about the most classic german name i can think of. He was half jewish indeed.>>17033865>how can something that was great be killed by a definitionNow to the science. Math is about building models or in these models draw clear proofable conclusions. For reality, to help other sicence, to help people, just from interest alone about the nature of numbers, etc.Now this set theory was forced on us, which removed common sense from mathematic and did lead it into completely absurd models that lost every sense of reality and more and more usefulness.
>>17033867Wait even maternally he was jewish at least partly>Cantor's maternal great uncle (i.e., the brother of his maternal grandfather), the great violin pedagogue Josef Böhm, was a Jew by birth.
>>17033867>not ethnically russianYes, that's what "anchor baby" means.>father was a jewCantor's anecdote about jews in Portugal is his own fantasy; useful for getting a job; unsupported by any documents or reality. Why do you believe him?>removed common senseDoesn't answer the question. How can a "model" that makes sense be killed by a "definition" that doesn't make sense?
>>17033868Says who? Cantor? His fantasy about jews makes sense to you but not his fantasy about infinity? Why? You seem to be very confused lol
>>17033424>Bolzano (catholic priest), Cauchy (catholic; family and him persecuted by revolutionaries) and Weierstrass (catholic Rhinelander family)They all lived before actual infinity was axiomatically defined as existing for mathematics. Only bolanzo accepted it. Not the others. Most did not before set theory.>definitions seem rationalYeah at first glance, after the consequences you see they were retarded.>>17033080>>17033198Kek. Yeah this>You can always fit a number between two real numbersalready assumes the number of 0.9999.... exists. This is prerequisite.>>17032901Yeah this is interesting. Its true that its all done in the "right" way to not have it all crumbling down in endless contradictions
>>17033869>Yes, that's what "anchor baby" means.Ok i see its some american thing....>>17033869>Cantor's anecdote about jews in Portugal is his own fantasy; useful for getting a job; unsupported by any documents or reality. Why do you believe him?Cantor is a jewish name>>17033870>Says who? Cantor? His fantasy about jews makes sense to you but not his fantasy about infinity? Why? You seem to be very confused lolNo this is proven>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_B%C3%B6hm>brother of maternal graddad>jewishYou argue in VERY VERY bad faith if you make a personal attack on me when i say something correct.>>17033869>Doesn't answer the question. How can a "model" that makes sense be killed by a "definition" that doesn't make sense?You already demonstrably argue in very bad faith, you will continue to pick on tiny inconsistencies, wont accept any good arguments from me, will never be convinces, will try everything to make me look bad, etc etc. I dont want to argue in these circumstances.I can still give you the answer of common sense that is violated with set theory for example>different infinities>Banach-Tarski Paradox>Set of All Sets paradox>generally the way it chances logic in mathematics, to always think of sets is bad
Let [math]S_n = \sum_{k=1}^{n} (1/2)^k[/math]. Then [math]S_n = 1 - (1/2)^n[/math] for all [math]n \ge 1[/math]:Base case. [math]S_1 = 1/2 = 1 - 1/2[/math].Inductive step. Assume [math]S_n = 1 - (1/2)^n[/math]. Then[eqn] S_{n+1} = S_n + \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{n+1} = 1 - \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^n + \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{n+1} = 1 - \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^{n+1} [/eqn]since [math]\left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)^{n+1} = \left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)^n - \left(\tfrac{1}{2}\right)^{n+1}[/math].By induction, [math]2^n = (1+1)^n \ge 1+n[/math] for [math]n \ge 0[/math]. Hence[eqn] 0 < \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^n \le \frac{1}{n+1} \rightarrow[n\to\infty]{} 0 [/eqn]so [math]\lim_{n\to\infty} (1/2)^n = 0[/math].[eqn] \lim_{n\to\infty} S_n = \lim_{n\to\infty}\left(1 - \left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^n\right) = 1 - 0 = 1 [/eqn]Since [math]\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(1/2)^k = \lim_{n\to\infty} S_n[/math], this limit exists and equals 1.Q.E.D.
>>17033877>∑∞k=1(1/2)k=limn∞SnYou cant solve a philosophical discussion with pure math. With the writing of the sum to infinity you exactly assume acctual infinity exists, exactly what the question in this thread is.
>>17033878Philosophy of mathematics is not mathematics. For that, please inform yourself first and go to >>>/his/
>>17033879You did enter a thread knowing its about philosophy. >You can't sum an "infinite" sequence of numbers because you would never be able to complete the computation.You made a long calculation knowing you exactly use the opposite of his premise to "show" that he is wrong in circular logic.You did hope nobody would see what you didNow you are mad
>>17033872>Ok i see its some american thing....So you are wrong at least once. Remember that.>Cantor is a jewish nameAlso Anglo, French, German; probably others. Dating back at least to Normans, Frisians, Thuringii, etc.>No this is provenWhat source? Wikipedia? There's not even a secondary source linked to by wikipedia.>VERY VERY bad faith if you make a personal attack on me when i say something correct.You have said nothing correct, one thing wrong (yes, Cantor was a Russian anchor baby), and one thing with no source (Cantor has imaginary jews in his family).>I can give you the answer of common sense that is violatedNo, I asked you how one definition that violates common sense can kill a whole model that doesn't violate common sense. How? Can you answer?
>>17033883>dude just trust me, a 4chan schizo, all sources are wrong I AM RIGHT HEHEHEHEHE THAT GREAT UNCLE DID NOT EXIST WIKIPEDIA INVENTED HIM HOHOHOHOHOFuck off>No, I asked you how one definition that violates common sense can kill a whole model that doesn't violate common sense.Not kill, but replaced and forced to use this model, so by not developüing the old ones they got obsolete by time
>>17033882The OP says to "prove it". I did.But maybe I was naive to enter a mathematics board and expect mathematics threadsAlso>"long" calculationpathetic
>>17033884>all sourcesYou mean no sources. You've given zero sources. Not even one.>Not kill, but replaced and forcedI'm not asking for another "word salad" summary of WHAT you think happened; I'm asking HOW do you think an imaginary model that worked so well got replaced by a definition that doesn't work at all?
>>17033023I hate it too when they say that. I would say as n or i or k or whatever step variable gets larger and larger
>>17032892Do you know base 2 ?1(base 2) = 1(any base)10(base 2) = 2(base 10)100(base 2) = 4(base 10)On the other side :0.1(base 2) = 0.5(base 10) = 1/2(base 10)0.01(base 2) = 0.25(base 10) = 1/4(base 10)0.001(base 2) = 0.125(base 10) = 1/8(base 10)In OP's, you have :x = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ...It's like writing :x(base 2) = 0.1(base 2) + 0.01(base 2) + 0.001(base 2) +...x(base 2) = 0.111... (base 2)You can then use the rule of infinite decimals :x(base 10 = 0.999...(base 10) = 1x(base 2) = 0.111...(base 2) = 1
>>17033886There are a mass of sources saying his father was Jewish including him saying it. And then a 4chan schizo (you) comes and says A: These sources are no sources B: Cantor himself is wrong C: His maternal Jewish uncle did not existJust fuck off i have enough>how replacedI said it before, Jewish networking in academia, their money, the media, etc. It was pushed hard around 1900.
>>17033972>You can then use the rule of infinite decimals :And here you assume infinite sets exist. Same as the other guy you can't prove this philosophical question with pure math. It's circular.
With right axioms you can prove anything, or am I wrong?
>>17034026prove infinity does not exists.So there are finite amount of numbers you suppose. Then there exists a number such that there does not exist any number beyond that number.Now add +1 to that number.Here you go, you generated another number which is greater than the final number a contradiction. If there does not exist finite amount of numbers then there exists infinite amount of them.
>>17034037Yea so basically this is the whole argument of infinitist retards>Assume infinity exists>I can now do this infinite computationLMAO.
>>17034026>And here you assume infinite sets exist. It's an axiom. That's almost like saying "you assume 1+1=2 for natural numbers"If you have new insight on what removing this axiom could be useful for, please do share, otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time.And it's not circular. That would be assuming the thesis in the middle, nobody is trying to prove infinities exist here. Infinity is assumed as an axiom because that's the standard way to do it.So please use terms like "circular" only when you actually know what it means
If you don't complete the computation the answer will be 0.999... But because we know that this is equal to one, the computation was complete after all. Therefore it's possible to add up all the fractions.
Best we can do is a limit, if you don't accept that there is nothing else we can offer you, What we can do is argue why the limit is equal to the actuall number
>nooo infinity does not exist because I cannot count itthat is the whole point u know....
>>17034039>prove infinity does not exists.Only when you prove actual infinity exists>>17034039>If there does not exist finite amount of numbers then there exists infinite amount of them.Maybe neighter hu? But the point is i do not say potential infinity doesnt exist, its what you described. You can always add more.But actual infinity (as in an actual element with infinity many numbers) does not exist, and it fucked up math to assume otherwise.>>17034045>>17034045Yes its an axiom. The point of this thread is to discuss it. And your "proof" was using the axiom therefore circular.>Infinity is assumed as an axiom because that's the standard way to do it.Yes>>17034045>If you have new insight on what removing this axiom could be useful for, please do share,First of you dont get retarded math like>different infinities>Banach-Tarski Paradox>Set of All Sets paradox>generally the way it chances logic in mathematics, to always think of sets is badSecond math lost all common sense with set theory.
>>17034090Something where you cant count everything thats in it is potentially infinity, like the natural numbers.But to assume ACTUAL infinity exists, like an uncomputable irrational number, thats where the problem is. Thats when common sense is lost, new paradoxes pop up and thats when you get this retarded uncountable set. (there are only countable many computable numbers like e)
>>17034026NTA but you don't need "infinite sets" to prove 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... = 1; just the additive identity; see >>17033626>>17034025>mass of sources [...] fuck offYou still haven't given a SINGLE sources that isn't hearsay on wikipedia, which even elementary school children are taught is not to be cited as a valid source and are proscribed from doing so. So, no, fuck YOU. Dumb, arrogant asshole screeching out your unsourced internet vomit like a loud, bird-brained parrot.>Jewish networking in academia, their money, the mediaWhat media? What the hell are you even talking about? Fucking lol
>>17034119>You still haven't given a SINGLE sources that isn't hearsay on wikipedia, which even elementary school children are taught is not to be cited as a valid source and are proscribed from doing so. So, no, fuck YOU. Dumb, arrogant asshole screeching out your unsourced internet vomit like a loud, bird-brained parrot.>schizo ramblingTry google.com ALL sources confirms he had jewish ancestry. I dont believe you, a 4chan schizo, over all other sources. Case closed.>>17034119>What media? What the hell are you even talking about? Fucking lolTo be true the real media push for set theory only was in the 1950s they pushed set theory for kids in schools, only after backlash from people with common sense they partially went back from this idea. But it was pushed as only foundation of modern math too at that time.
>>17032892do you accept real numbers? If so you accept Cauchy completion, implicitly. If you don't, then the expression is not the one conventionally discussed or meant. Yes or no?
>>17034133>Try google.comNot a source.>ALL sources confirms he had jewish ancestry.So cite ONE>I dont believe you, a 4chan schizoNeither do I, you deranged chirping parakeet monkey, WHICH IS WHY I KEEP ASKING YOU FOR A SOURCE>over all other sourcesAll zero of them? Lol>Case closedIndian debate syntax.>media push for set theoryNigga what? What media was pushing set theory at any point in history? This question should be very easy for you to answer since you've already claimed to have some very specific boomer knowledge about the 1950s in particular; so let's have it.
>>17034138>do you accept real numbersThis is the right question. Not OP but i do not accept the actual EXISTENCE of uncomputable irrational numbers. (this would be the numbers that make this set uncountable in set theory). And i believe that you can only get arbitrarily close to lets say e, the exact representation with infinite many numbers does not exist too.Furthermore a set with all these numbers as such doesnt exist aswell, but you can make a list of them (computable numbers are countable) and it wont ever stop, eventually every countable number you think of will be included. But the ful list as such doesnt exist.
>>17034140>ALL sources confirms he had jewish ancestry.Yes they do, are you too retarded to search yourself? You have the burden of proof here since its accepted he has jewish ancestry, your strategy is to give this burden to me and then you would attack every source i give to you. Not playing this game, i already establised you are not out for honest discussion.So please give me a source that isnt you, that he had no jewish ancestry. Your make the crazy claim.>>17034140>What media was pushing set theory at any point in history?https://time.com/archive/6873953/teaching-the-trials-of-new-math/Hard push, defended it as better new math. Was pushed more by the gover´nment tho it seems.
>>17034146>Yes they do, are you too retarded to search yourself? So cite ONE of them.>https://time.com/archive/6873953/teaching-the-trials-of-new-math/What the fuck are you even seeing in this article that has anything whatsoever to do with infinite sets, let alone uncountable ones? Let alone the media pushing them? And now the government? Holy fuck you are one seriously brain-cooked motherfucker.
>>17034142but e is computable? I get your point though, but that kinda stuff is beyond OP, and ofc restricting to computable numbers is frankly good enough for physics, just verbose
>>17034154>So cite ONE of them.No you got the burden of proof.>>17034154>What the fuck are you even seeing in this article that has anything whatsoever to do with infinite sets, let alone uncountable ones? Let alone the media pushing them? And now the government? Holy fuck you are one seriously brain-cooked motherfucker.As extablsihed here>>17033872>You already demonstrably argue in very bad faith, you will continue to pick on tiny inconsistencies, wont accept any good arguments from me, will never be convinces, will try everything to make me look bad, etc etc.You argue in bad faith. Its clearly a promotional piece for the "new math".
>>17034157>but e is computableYes, its the never ending sum of 1/n! right? You can get arbitrarily close, just never reach the ful number.
>>17034160Hmm. Okay, I like Ken Kesey's writing and dislike the idea of a hive state that can institutionalize nonviolent people on a whim but it really is quite unfortunate how the random cultural walk away from that, which his book archetypifies, has only led to objectively deranged monkeys like you being allow to commute freely in human-oriented circles.
>>17034169Cantor was (partially) jewish, deal with it. The only "source" claiming otherwise is a 4chan schizo, you.
>>17034101>like an incalculable irrational numberI dunno dude... For example, if I make a calculation error like ‘2 + 2 = 3’, should I disregard the number 4 simply because I can’t calculate it, or should I accept that 4 equals 2 + 2 as an objective reality independent of my ability to calculate?
>>17034182I don't see the argument here. You can still calculate 4 in endless other ways, like 7-3
>>17034179I'm not claiming anything, I'm asking for a source that isn't hearsay; and you've failed yet again for the umpteenth time to cite a single one. I wonder why lol
>>17034184fine calculate e.
>>17034162fair enough!
>>17034186Its known that cantor has jewish ancestry, his materal great uncle Joseph Böhm existing proves it more then enough.You literally ignore his existence and want "more sources" or some bullshit. Fuck off and prove he did not exist if you want to be taken serious.
>>17034187See>>17034162And by compute i mean not find out the exact infinite long sequence, that doesnt exist, but to get arbitrarily close.
>>17034202>"more sources"Yes, more than zero. At least one source. For either of your ever-changing delusions about Cantor being a jew or about the "media" and/or "government" "hard" "pushing" set theory (lol).
>>17034332Cantor was of Jewish ancestry, you are literally denying the existence of his known Jewish relative. About the second thing that can be discussed and you won't ever agree with me here.
>>17034332Also again even Wikipedia is a better source then you have for your claim he was not Jewish.
>>17034425Wow, I guess Leibniz and Bruno are also jews by the exact same logic of this somehow acting a "source" for Cantor being a jew. What a tour de force in scholarship rofl
>>17034346Missed this>About the second thing that can be discussed and you won't ever agree with meProbably not, but that's only because how you're describing the Time magazine article you linked is so ridiculously and irremediably stupid and logically divorced from the actual text of the article. There's probably not a single entity in existence right now that I hate more than the intersection of media and government; I'd LOVE to agree with you; it's just so fucking absurd to claim that for some unknown reason this entity cares about set theory even slightly, let alone that they care enough to forcefully push it via whatever the 1950s version of the Sunstein "nudge" is.
>>17034142>i do not accept the canvas because it's not paintPlease poo in /biz/loo, /biz/jeet
Can we start banning or, even better, brutally murdering drooling retards who don't even understand Calc 1?
>>17034686Or maybe we ban textbook midwits like you who dont understand that this is about foundations not calculations.>>17034613Im the guy you discussed with and i did not post the pic. YOU need a source that he wasnt a jew, Joseph Böhm existing is already more then enough proof that he had jewish ancestry.
>>17034648The reason would be to remove common sense in people. its important.>>17034667If you assume they exist, you run into contradictions. And why should actual infinity exist?
>>17034968No, the null hypothesis given someone who was born and raised in a protestant church with a protestant dad and a catholic mom (and who obsessively communicated with the pope) is that they're christian. The burden is completely on you to disprove that. Fucking idiot lol.>>17034969Of course, because that totally makes sense for governments to target a vanishingly small number of bookworm mathematicians who pose no threat to any power center anywhere. Also, and I know you're a complete idiot, so I'm guessing yes in advance, but do you really, honestly, think that even the most devoted "set theorists" go to the store and pick three apples and see {{},{{}},{{},{{}}}}?
>>17034969>If you assume they exist, you run into contradictionsIf you make contradictory statements, you run into contradictions. If the mere existence of unbounded objects is contradictory, it would appear somewhere in your axioms you're asserting every object is bounded. The problem was never infinity.
>>17035099>No, the null hypothesis given someone who was born and raised in a protestant church with a protestant dad and a catholic mom (and who obsessively communicated with the pope) is that they're christian. The burden is completely on you to disprove that. Fucking idiot lol.No the null hypothesis is whats actually accepted in literature and thats jewish, INDEPENDENTLY mother and father side. Joseph Böhm existing alone is more then enough.>>17035099>target a vanishingly small number of bookworm mathematiciansAre you retarded? Math is teached to everyone in school. It was exactly about that in the 60s.>>17035119>If the mere existence of unbounded objects is contradictory,It is, see>different infinities>Banach-Tarski Paradox>Set of All Sets paradox>generally the way it chances logic in mathematics, to always think of sets is bad"Paradox" is often just a nice word for contradiction where the mainstream doesnt want to say it.
>>17035099>born and raised in a protestant church with a protestant dad and a catholic momSource for that btw
>>17032892suppose 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... < 1, that means exists some eps such that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... + eps = 1, rest of proof we leave as an exercise to the reader
>>17035217>"Paradox" is often just a nice word for contradiction where the mainstream doesnt want to say it.contradicting intuition is not the same as an inconsistent formalism.Banach Tarski is simply a statement that general point sets are not volume preserving which is frankly trifling, and shows that restricting to measurable sets is important in certain applications>The universal set I mean that problem is pretty much dead>>generally the way it chances logic in mathematics, to always think of sets is badidk man I feel like you are more guided by a sense of aesthetics here.
>>17035218Sure:>Archive CSHA St. Petersburg, Fond 272, Opis 1, Delo 204, List 8Contemporary birth and school records for Cantor and his parents' social and religious provenance.>Archive CSHA St. Petersburg, Fond 3457, Opis 2, Delo 9, List 118.Contemporary wedding records for Cantor's maternal grandmother and her parents' social and religious provenance.Those are what credible primary archival sources look like, you dumb, sad motherfucker.>>17035217>accepted in literatureWhat literature? Like a fictional novel or something? In any case, if you prefer "literature" to actual sources, the Encyclopedia Britannica is certainly more credible than any of your deranged schizography.>Cantor’s parents were Danish. His artistic mother, a Roman Catholic, came from a family of musicians, and his father, a Protestant, was a prosperous merchant.What a stupid, stupid monkey you are lol.
