>Navier-Stokes solved>Continuumfags BTFO>Wildberger validated, as usual.BLESSED DAYWE JUST. KEEP. WINNING.
>>17049427we just cant stop winning giga finite chads
>>17049427Im a finitist, not an ultrafinitist
>>17049917What's the difference
>>17049922Potential infinity exists i think. But you never can make "a set of infinite numbers", in fact i reject set theory.
>>17049923>Potential infinity existswithin what?, time?, is time infinite?, really?
>>17050121No. Thats exactly what potential infinity is. Its never a "set" because time is finite, but you will never be finished if you start listing it.
>>17049427>Navier-Stokes solvedIt's not solved. The Millenium Problem question about the N-S equations was answered. Very different things.
>>17050537qrd?
>>17049923What does it mean to make a number tho?Refer to it? Enumerate some property?
Lets transmute our nomenclature Infinity in this regard means the final lowest Planck scale, smallest point particle (or not), and the quant thereof (or no upper limit to the quant). Is/Isn't Which would be related to the question of Pi being a rational number, or, more importantly, how many point particles does it take to build scale up the Planck Size-Evator large enough to create the circle.....
