ITT mathematical concepts that would make a great horror movie. I'll start with an obvious one
>>220847813stfu dumb cunt
>>220847813holy shit mathematics is insane, i doubt i be understanding this, but qrd anyway?
>>220847813Mathematics is gender studies for men.
>>220847813>If you deconstruct a sphere a certain and and then arrange the pieces in a certain way you can end up with two spheres.Spooky.
>>220847813What does a menacing Ball turning on their Stand have to do with mathematics?
>>220847813Banach-Tarski? Shitty illustration.Anyway, when you're dealing with infinite point sets, nothing is particularly surprising. It's basically just Zeno's turtle paradox in three dimensions rather than one.
>>220848143you can meet your doppelganger
>>220847813Maybe I haven't watched enough movies, but I never saw one that mentioned infinite dimensions, uncountable or not. I mean, I guess multiverses are kinda it, but it's really bizarre that movies and shows always seem to "stop" at the fourth dimension.
>>220848121>Mathematics is gender studies for men.Considering how many genders there are, that would limit mathematics to boolean algebra.
>>220848089spheres are infinite
>>220849374No. Spheres are, by definition, finite.They are made up of infinitely many points though. They are even made up of infinitely many continuous sets of points, which is why Banach-Tarsky works. But the sphere as a body is finite.
>if you accept an axiom that has no relationship with reality you can use it to prove theorems that have nothing to do with realityYawn
>>220849745don't forget people get paid and live lives off this kind of mumbo jumbo
>>220849745>>220849775See >>220848121
>Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form a^b^c^... even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three.I'm starting to think math is kind of retarded
>>220849745>if you accept an axiom that has no relationship with realityWhat do even you mean by that? How and why would mathematics have to have a "relationship with reality"?The axiom of choice is (almost) universially accepted because it makes sense. For finite sets, it's trivial: Just order the set any way you like and take the first element. For a good number of infinite sets (generative sets like the natural numbers, iterative or recursive sets, algebraic structures, and so on, plus any sets that are derived from those) there also exists a well-ordering that trivializes the choice.The main "problem" are infinite sets that don't have any clear structural properties that would allow you to define a well-ordering intuitively. And that causes certain autists to get confused where to begin when "choosing". Whereas normal people just say: Pick one element, start with that.
>>220849961My number, "Anon's number", is even bigger than this. Like, a LOT bigger. Sorry, Graham. You lose.
>>220849961Prepare yourself idiots. I have pontificated a new largest number. it’s called grahams number plus one
>>220849995>is even bigger than this.The point of Graham's number was not to be "big". As the post you responded to states, it was a number that simply was came from calculations to estimate an upper bound in a formal proof.That it is a very large number is incidental, even if that fact made it famous. Of course, constructing much larger numbers is not difficult. But it's also rather pointless.
>>220849745It's literally just a gayer version of Zeno's "Achilles and the Tortoise" Paradox
