Reminder that you cannot count past 10^200

>>8180674
Thanks, I'll keep in mind not to try.

>>8180674
Why [math] 10^{200} [/math]?

>>8180686
Number of atoms in the universe I suppose

>>8180674
Wildburger thinks of numbers as a line that you can extend indefinitely but he doesn't like the idea that you can contain all those numbers inside a box

>>8180690
There are only about [math] 10^{80} [/math] atoms in the universe, although that's my back of the envelope calculation, so it could be wrong.

>>8180695
>the idea that you can contain all those numbers inside a box
I love how informal he is about this shit. A box. Fucking math literalism. Yeah, the universe probably isn't continuous at the smallest scale either, but math isn't a literal description of the fucking universe.

>>8180701
He actually says inside a set

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKy_VTBq0yk

>>8180690
And why does that stop us from counting? Assuming I never died and could survive everything that happened from now to the end of the universe, I could potentially count forever.

Will real numbers be one day regarded like how we view luminiferous aether today?

>>8180714

I'm assuming the chances you'll forget the correct order of digits at that point becomes extremely high.

>>8180714
Go to 9m38s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA

>>8180674
10^200+1

Get rekt fag.

File: wildburger.png (195KB, 1650x1050px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1650x1050px

>>8180674

>>8180726
>>8180723

>>8180723
>muh computational power

I really don't understand why this is such a problem, it's just a practical limitation.

>>8180674
10^80=10E80
10^81=10E81
(...)
10^201=10E201

Checkmate

>>8180732
>computational power
that's not the issue, retard. The issue is that the number is so large that it can't actually be physically represented in the universe.

Does he have anything to say about digital computers?

>>8180745
>that's not the issue, retard

He repeatedly says that some number "doesn't exist" if you can't compute it, or some variation on that.

>>8180674
Who is this retard?

>>8180745
>needing the number to be physically represented
Why?

>>8180745

Well, I think that if you try to compute all the possible permutations of all the atoms in the universe, you'll probably end with a number of magnitude greater than 200. And still, it's a physically represented number.

>>8180745
>The issue is that the number is so large that it can't actually be physically represented in the universe.
That's just a practical limitation.

>cherrypicking and putting things out of context


He literally said you cannot have a datastructure that contains all of the natural numbers. He is merely questioning the axioms of set theory.

>>8180757
can you exhibit it?
if not, then I don't believe it exists.

>>8180769
>He literally said you cannot have a datastructure that contains all of the natural numbers. He is merely questioning the axioms of set theory.
What does one have to do with the other? Answer: nothing

It's all just baseless rhetoric.

>>8180773
Exhibit the number 1.

Also, no one cares if you believe anything though. Mathematics is not a matter of belief.

>>8180756
He has a phd from Yale. I don't think he is a retard.

>>8180775
>It's all just baseless rhetoric.
Not at all. Can you have a vector [math]v \in \mathbb{R}^\infty[/math]? Then how come you can have limitless amount of members in a set?

Wildberger just doesen't like the consept of infinity.

>>8180778
>Exhibit the number 1
[ | ]

>Also, no one cares if you believe anything though. Mathematics is not a matter of belief.
it is. It's a matter of what axioms you accept as the foundation of your system.

>>8180787
That's not the number 1, that's just a representation of 1. If I ask you to show me a mountain exists do you draw a picture of it?

>it is. It's a matter of what axioms you accept as the foundation of your system.
So axioms are a matter of belief? No you fundamentally don't understand what axioms are, probably because you've been watching too many Wildberger videos.

>>8180784
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite-dimensional_vector_function

>Wildberger just doesen't like the consept of infinity.
Exactly. Not liking something is not a mathematical argument.

>>8180787
>[ | ]
How is this any different to writing 1, bot are just representations of concepts, and if that counts why not just do something like [eqn] [~~ | \underbrace{\cdots } _{10^{1231}} |~~] [/eqn]

>>8180793
Not that guy but what are axioms?

>>8180799
Why do you people treat a Professor with a PhD from Yale as a dumb ass random guy? Do you think you know more math than Wildberger?

>>8180674
10^200 + 1
Checkmate.

>>8180800
sorry dots don't mean anything.
1 is [ | ]
2 is [ || ]
it's natural.
What is "..."??? It's meaningless.

Numbers are m-sets.

>>8180793
>If I ask you to show me a mountain exists do you draw a picture of it?

1 is something as opposed to 0 which is nothing.

For example, something can be a strike like this on your screen: |
I just showed you 1.

>>8180799
>Not liking something is not a mathematical argument.

It is when you deal with axioms.

>>8180806
>If someone has a Ph.D they're literally infallible

Having a Ph.D implies that someone is likely right, it doesn't Guarantee it. Look at Linus Pauling, Ph.D, Nobel prize winner, literally a genius. Yet towards the end of his life he started believing that mega doses of vitamin C were keeping him alive. Just because he had a Ph.D didn't mean he was right.

>>8180816
>Lines are natural
>dots aren't

You can't make this up. Dots just represent repeated application of something.

>>8180819
I didn't mean he is right because he has a phd, but people here talk about Wildberger like he is some random poster from /sci/

>>8180801
Axioms are the fundamental premises from which all mathematical statements are derived. Saying that you believe or disbelieve an axiom doesn't make sense, as there is no such thing as a true or false axiom. That would imply that axioms themselves are derived in some way or that there is a way to tell that an axiom is "false". There are only interesting axioms and non-interesting axioms. The latter are usually inconsistent or lead to trivial results.

>>8180806
Why? I think I have explained clearly why. He uses irrational, mathematical rhetoric. Instead of defending his rhetoric, you fell back on his credentials. I don't know as much about Lie algebras as Wildberger, but he is not talking about Lie algebras. He is barely even talking about math.

>>8180816
>1 is something as opposed to 0 which is nothing.
Now you are trying to explain 1 to me when I asked you to show me that 1 exists. Clearly 1 does not exist and you are just trying to hide this fact. Mathematicians are so dishonest.

>>8180822
>Dots just represent repeated application of something.
dots can't represent a random number at your convenience.
A certain number of dots can.
But 3 dots can't entail any number you want at your leisure.

>>8180842
damn, you're right.
Therefore real numbers don't exist, case in point.
thanks for making my point for me.

>>8180818
Wildberger rejects axioms: http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers/SetTheory.pdf

Wildberger does not argue "I don't like your axioms, my axioms are more interesting." His argument is "my mathematical beliefs are how reality is, everyone else's is false."

>>8180824
Wildberger is a crank youtuber. His PhD doesn't change that and is frankly irrelevant.

>>8180848
And neither do "natural" numbers. But nice attempt to move the goalposts.

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

>>8180859
>And neither do "natural" numbers.
That's what we're trying to tell you.

>I lost the argument so I'll try to use words I don't understand
that's what the argument was about in the first place.

>this is what mathematicians actually believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88

>>8180827
Not the guy your responding to, or the initial guy

Can you give an example of an interesting and non-interesting axiom?

My guess is that a "relatively" non-interesting axiom would be something like 1+1=2, which is based in mathematics were familiar with?

>>8180894
Axioms of non-interesting set theory:
1. There's a set, called the empty set

Axioms of an interesting set theory:
[insert ZFC axioms or whatever here]

>>8180773
can you exhibit you micropenis?
if not, then I don't believe it exists.

>>8180916
I don't really care if you believe in my penis, its only purpose is to evacuate my ammonia-loaded urine.
But apparently you care if I believe in infinity or in real numbers.

>>8180936
Pretty sure you don't care if I care about you believing in infinity or real numbers either.

>>8180956
then why do you want to force everyone to believe in infinity and real numbers?
Let wildberger develop his theory in peace.

>>8180745
I actually agree with this.

This is why shit like the "a monkey who types an infinite number of characters will eventually type Shakespeare" shit frustrates me because even time in this world as we know it is not infinite.

>>8180690
What if you want to model a universe with more mass than our own. It would be useful to have larger numbers because more particles.

>>8180972
then it's not astrophysics anymore, it's astrology.

>>8180723
At 11:53 he says "the complexity of [a number that big] becomes far from uniform."

What does that mean? I get the argument but how is it "far from uniform" ?


Also, it sounds a bit ridiculous but couldn't we say that mathematics is not a representation of this universe but rather of a "make-believe" universe where the number of particles is much, much larger, and just say that math is a representation of that universe?

>>8180968
You're assuming that, I literally just came in this thread to ask you pics of your dick.

>>8180852
He's right that mathematics does not reflect reality. But I don't think it was ever supposed to nor do I think it would be more useful if it did. What reason does he have that it should represent reality and my position is therefore wrong?

>>8180989
>But I don't think it was ever supposed to
but it was... it was supposed to help us describe what we see. Geometry and arithmetics didn't start as vector spaces with norms and groups/rings.
It started as a way to find patterns in the world.
Somewhere along the way it became about something else.

>>8180873
It's really not though. Rather than watch a 24 minute video of garbage with made up, useless, objects, just take 5 minutes to look up "countably infinite," "uncountably infinite" and "at most countable." That is what mathematicians really believe and it takes like 5 minutes to grasp and makes intuitive sense once you get it. Really simple stuff.

>>8180873
>including zero in the natural numbers

>>8180979
well you can write 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10+23 easily, it only has a few characters.
But imagine a number that's a bit smaller, but that isn't necessarily expressed in such a small number of characters and procedures. That number would have high complexity. For example a product of prime numbers up until some randomly big point. You can't describe it properly without writing the whole multiplication of the 10^10^10^10^10^10*something first prime numbers. Or by writing every digit it has. There are numbers like that that are smaller than z, but more complex.

>>8180998
>infinity
>InfinitIES
>intuitive sense once you get it
kek, it doesn't make sense.

>>8180870
You seem to have lost track of who's being sarcastic and who's not.

>>8180894
>My guess is that a "relatively" non-interesting axiom would be something like 1+1=2, which is based in mathematics were familiar with?
Well for one, that's not actually an axiom. And no, it's not what I'm talking about. Learn about ZFC and then come back.

>>8180969
Time in this world as we know it is infinite.

>>8180979
>Also, it sounds a bit ridiculous but couldn't we say that mathematics is not a representation of this universe but rather of a "make-believe" universe where the number of particles is much, much larger, and just say that math is a representation of that universe?
Yes, and we DO say that in varying terms, but idiots suffering from math literalism must question everything from the basis of reality and become finitist like wildeburger.

That's kind of the point of axioms, we declare a set of rules to start with and see where they lead. When faced with issues, we have three options: throw out an axiom, modify an axiom, or avoid doing what brings out the issue.

>>8181010
>But imagine a number that's a bit smaller
So 10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10-n where n is a small number

The Kolmogrov complexity of integers is very uniform, unlike what Wildberger says.

>>8180739
10^80 = 1E80

moron

>>8180674
is this guy sick or something?
>thhose black eyse
>that weirdly tanned skin
does he have aids?

>>8181069
that escalated quickly

>>8180996
If we adopted Wildberger's axioms (even though he doesn't admit they are axioms) we would have much more difficulty describing what we see. This seems rather hypocritical. First you complain that standard mathematics isn't real enough, now it seems you want to throw out modern physics that best describes our world because it uses that mathematics. Until Wildberger actually describes reality better, he's just a crank.

Line up all the atoms in the universe so that you have a line of 10^80 atoms. Now raise the rightmost atom 1 meter above all the other atoms, such that it can be represented as a binary digit 0000....0001. The number 2^10^80 can be represented using this system and so on if you create different levels of height for the atoms to go to, such that you can eventually represent numbers such as 10^10^80. Very large numbers can technically be represented in our real world in a situation such as this

>>8181069
he got the reals sucked out of him m8

>>8181050
No it's not. The whole entropy thing kind of ruins that.

>>8181086
How so? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

>>8180690
I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons

>>8180873
put my glasses on just to watch this video. made me feel more smarter while watching

>>8181011
in the context of bijections between sets, it's completely straightforward, Just because the language used seems counter intuitive at first doesn't mean it fails to express a meaningful idea

>>8181077
>If we adopted Wildberger's axioms (even though he doesn't admit they are axioms) we would have much more difficulty describing what we see.
no we wouldn't.
How could it be more difficult since it already doesn't work? Physics is weak in its current form, it needs mathematics based on reality to reach its ultimate form.

File: vsauce.jpg (97KB, 1256x228px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1256x228px

>>8180873
>vsauce

>>8181231
get over yourself anon
everybody understands the notion of different infinities, it's trivial.
Only smarter people are able to see that the concept doesn't belong in our mathematical constructions.

>>8181233
Nice troll.

>>8181235
>babushkas
That means grandmother. Matroshka is the word he's looking for. Somehow though this makes me rage far less than seeing vsauce's stupid face.

File: 234743575436352.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>he fell for Cantor's diagonal argument

>>8181235
Why does it matter if it's vsauce that's saying it, is it false or not?

>>8181238
>Only smarter people are able to see that the concept doesn't belong in our mathematical constructions.
if you're going to appeal to authority, at least have it make sense. Finitism or similar rejections of larger sets are still very much a fringe beliefs, and I doubt the majority of notable mathematicians hold them

>>8181241
>nice troll

>what are singularities
>no theory of everything
>navier stokes unsolvable
>P=NP???
>quantum physics = we can't know nothing
>regularization of the casimir effect, among others

I'm sure you can explain all that with "real"-valued functions.

>>8181255
It would be better to throw out the reals and deal exclusively with points moving on discrete grids. That sounds like reality.

>>8181255
How does finitism solve any of those "problems"? Getting rid of quantum mechanics because infinity makes you sad doesn't do anything. You're like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

>>8181272
Wow, Is this how intellectuals talk? First time I've seen it. /sci/ is great.

>>8181011
You can't label every real number with a unique integer. We choose to express this as saying that one infinity is bigger than another. You, like everyone else winning about some obvious flaw in modern math, are arguing semantics over a name chosen to describe an abstract concept.

>>8181282
no, there is no such thing as infinity that arises naturally anywhere from any other mathematical property.

1...(199 0s)...0
1...(199 0s)...1

there

>>8180969
why does the mathematical world have to be bound with the physical world? What the fuck is going on in this thread?

I can represent any number I want.

$$10^201$$

there.

lol sci is truly filled with this kind of mongoloids?

>>8180699
underrated

>>8180674

Ultrafinitist pls go.

you niggers who disagrees with him never mentions WHY he did it.

His problem is with axiomatic math, we as logician/mathematician should try to reduce our axiom to the lowest level possible instead of just assuming the set N exist for example. Or hey I don't fucking know how to properly define R completely but lets just say they exist

>>8181386
>let's just pretend some things we can never represent exist because if they don't we have to start over

>>8180686
Because you'd die before you'd reach 10^200.

>>8180773
Math is not a science, it is not empirical in the slightest.

>>8181522
of course it's not.
It's logical though.
And it's not logical that something exists but that you can't exhibit it or give a finite procedure to build it.

>>8181535
You can easily show that something exists using a logical argument without ever showing the thing in question.
Descartes' simple ontological argument is a wonderful example for this:
God is a perfect being.
Existing is necessary to be perfect.
Therefore God exists.

It's by no means flawless and be picked apart, however it is a great example for proving the existence of something that cannot be exhibted.

>>8181479
...we haven't assumed any of those things exist. Everything, even the reals, is constructed.

>>8181553
>Existing is necessary to be perfect.
wrong

>>8181553
>You can easily show that something exists using a logical argument without ever showing the thing in question.
Didn't that Nietzsche guy prove that you can't just logic stuff into existence? (a prior shit).

>>8180745
10^201

I just physically represented a number larger than 10^200.

>>8181693
Too large of a number
Set theory is a lie

It would take almost 31 years to count to a billion and that's without any breaks. So, I guess 10^15 would be more than enough!! You can't even count to 10^15!!

>>8180674
and yet I cant count 10e201 reasons why OP is a faggot

>>8181109
>implying there isn't just 1 electron in 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 states

>>8180723
"Start believing our computers and reorganize math."
God damn you Autberger.

>>8181693
Not that I agree with Wildburger but he obviously and explicitly meant to write it out digit by digit.

>>8181770
what if I count by prime numbers?

>>8181872
>you are confuse
We don't observe different electron states. All electrons are identical.

>>8182066
>add one 0 at the end
done?

I counted to 10^201 today, it wasn't hard

10^200 + 1, 10^200 + 2, 10^200 +3, 10^200 +4, 10^200+5........

>>8180757
Because if you count past ~10^200 you start referring to things that do not exist or if you go in circles(mod) you would count things twice

>>8182185
>referring to things that do not exist
Why would counting and "stuff existing" need to be related like that?
And if so: 1 and 2 and 3, ... (etc) also DO NOT exist. Yes you can count 1 apple or 3 sheep, but that doesn't mean there exist a "1" or a "3".

>>8182194
Shh, the kids aren't ready to lose everything they have and hate all of math because it doesn't exist.

>>8182194
Because a number is a value that needs to have a representation to exist

Just like you cant make words without letters one cant make numbers without matter

>>8181061
>n is a small number
if n is big enough, the complexity increases, since you need more symbols to represent it.
Which is exactly his point.
10^10^10^10^10^10 is very simple
if you add more symbols to make a smaller number, well... you're adding more symbols.
in order, it goes like "a lot of symbols -> much fewer symbols -> a lot of symbols again"

>>8181600
As I said, the argument can be picked apart easily, but it shows that you can prove the existence of something you can't present.

>>8182217
No, a number is an abstract concept.
It is not exclusively a representation of reality.

Remember Derrida, please.
Words, in the same vein, hold no meaning, they are used represent a concept.
In general language, and mathematic is a language, operates by putting a proxy between the concept held by people and the physical object itself to make it possible to communicate. For example the word "car" does not reference a specificially shaped object, but rather an idea that holds this designation. This means that "car" does not only refer to the specific existing idea, but also the idea in any abstracted form. For example it could refer to any sort of "self-moving" chariot.
This sort of thing is difficult to speak and think about since language cannot describe itself very well.

Similarly numbers do not hold any physical meaning, but they merely are representations of ideas. The fact that we can use numbers to describe the physical is owed to this idea/object distinction. A number can represent an amount of physical things, but also exist independent of this representation as this idea, due to the meta-physical nature of languages.
If this independence exists and the idea of addition is true, there must be a number of numbers greater than anything physically presentable.

>>8180686
My guess it's the number of Planck volumes in the observable universe.

>>8180726
I dont believe you, write it out so I can check

>>8180979

You have 100^200, good, now find a prime number closest to that. Can you?

This is what he meant by the complexity of the number.

>>8182217
>one cant make numbers without matter
What is [math]i[/math]

>>8181575

And apparently the reals that we constructed has certain flaws (as he always mentioned) and many mathematicians refuses to deal with it and just assume that the R works

Numbers are just social constructs. Mathematicians are wasting their time.

>>8182532
a social construct.

>>8182535
What flaws?

>>8182535
The construction of the reals is not complicated, and I encourage you to look at it. Wildberger just doesn't like infinite sets. It's not a flaw, but this weird quirk with Wildberger where he feels that math needs to 100% represent reality.

>>8182558
It's more like reality needs to 100% represent math. Physics that uses standard mathematics represents reality far better than any system Wildburger would prefer. His entire framing of the argument is a meta-confusion of the reality being represented for the representation itself.

>>8181517
I dont think so, i started counting 20 years ago and im currently at 10^70. I think i will do the other 66% in my remaining lifetime.

>>8180674
1, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ... 10^200 + 1 :^)

>>8182547
no more or less than 7, [math]1/3[/math], or [math]10^2[/math]

>>8180784
>Can you have a vector v∈R∞?
It's called a sequence of real numbers

>>8182066
Are you implying that 10^201 contains an unwritable amount of digits?

File: 48497._UY400_SS400_.jpg (25KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x400px

>>8180806
>Why do you people treat a Professor with a PhD as a dumb ass random guy?

>>8182558

My math knowledge is not that deep, but I did self studied Cauchy iirc a real number x is the "limit" of an integer y with some other requirements that I do't quite remember.

Now I had problem with this even before I knew of Wildberger and the problem was, does this mean that all x's have some f(x) to it? What about a completely arbitrarily long x? Like a completely random number 0.1235742358245424928424....

Can I form a function f: N -> R that have a limit that will approach said x?

I thought it was impossible, because I would have to refine my f infinitely many time to reach it. Feel free to prove me wrong, most of my math knowledge was self-learnt so I might get it wrong a lot of times

MY BAD: I meant lim(n -> inf)(f(z)) = x : n E N, z E Q , x E R

>>8182530
yeah thats 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999811

>>8182698
you're exactly right.
Wildberger basically sums it up as follows: in textbooks, you're only presented with "nice examples" that work fine (sqrt(2), pi, e). But they don't show you what you just mentionned. They don't show you that you cannot construct a cauchy sequence for most real numbers.

>>8182499
But it is math, a social construct.
It should still be arbitrarily possible...

>>8182217
Are you a physicist or just a boy that hit high school?

Yet again, Math is not a science.
Math is not about empirical observations, math is just logic, a computable system composed of axioms.

>>8182499
But observable Universe is still not the entire Universe, which is probably infinite.

>>8182443
An Idea also needs matter to exist. If I destory matter that contains an idea then the idea is detroyed with it.
Youre talking about an idea thats so big that it cant be thought because there isnt enough matter in the universe.

>>8182499
>Radius of the universe [math] \approx 10^{26} [/math] m
>Volume of the universe [math] \approx 4/3 \pi 10^{78} \approx 10^{78} ~ m^3 [/math]
>1 Planck volume [math] \approx 10^{-35} ~ m^3[/math]
>Planck volumes in the universe [math] \approx \frac { 10^{73} } { 10^{-35} } = 10^{ 108 } [/math]

So still looking for an answer.

>>8183025
protip: he never said you couldn't count past 10^200

>>8182792
>computable
top kek

File: Capture.png (1KB, 962x53px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 962x53px

>>8182503
<3

>>8183010
>An Idea also needs matter to exist.
No, it doesn't.
"concept-space" is unrelated to the physical reality.

>>8183200
> only has 198 zeros.
nice retard

>>8182071

there "are" an infinite amount of prime numbers but that's an unpopular opinion in this thread

>>8182071
>>>8181770
>what if I count by prime numbers?
like you would think of every next prime number that easily!!

File: Capture.png (2KB, 959x85px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 959x85px

>>8183648
< 3
3

>>8183648
just counted (with python) and it had 200 anon
did you get past sixth grade?

>>8181553
No

>>8180674
2 is the representation of the fractals: 1 +1
3 is the representation of the fractals: (1+1+1), (1+2)
4 is the representation of the fractals: (1+1+1+1), (1+1+2), (1+3), (2+2)
5 is: (1+1+1+1+1),(1+1+1+2), (1+1+3), (1+4), (1+2+2), (3+2)
10^200 is the representation... How many fractals does 10^200 contain?

>>8184158
you're listing partitions btw

>>8184159
They are also fractals

>>8184138
> babies first semantic error
how can you be this bad at coding?
Check it by hand again.

File: Capture.png (4KB, 957x167px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 957x167px

>>8184167
jesus christ

>>8184174
That's not even the same number.
Are you some kinda retarded?

>>8184176
are you fucking serious of course it's the same number I generated it using the exact same way
>did you get past grade six?
my god

>>8184179
> one ends in 1
> the other ends in 0
> same number
if you say so, my fifth grade education tells me they're different.

File: Capture.png (2KB, 961x100px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 961x100px

>>8184186
this is a fucking waste of time

>>8184192
Okay, now prove that you can construct it inductively.

>>8182597
yes he is implying that. OP said that you cant COUNT past 10^200, not that there arent numbers larger than 10^200

>>8184195
You mean using recursion?

>>8184211
idk. I ran out of troll responses about 3 posts ago.
I just found it funny that you kept working to prove me wrong.

The real issue with your script (besides you not showing your code/proof), is that Wildberger is implying that only numbers that can be written down as a series of 1s. You haven't shown that that number exists before showing a decimal representation of that number.

>>8184231
>I was pretend to be retard Xd

>>8184236
you're a fucking idiot for angrily replying to such obvious bait senpai

>>8184231
haha yeah I got it about half way through that you were just trying to make me work
and yeah, the first image was meant as a joke
I know it has nothing to do with what wildberger is saying

>>8180757
this. numbers arent even fucking real to begin with. 10^200 DOES exist in an abstract sense, it just has no practical purpose.

>>8184249
>10^200 DOES exist in an abstract sense
prove it

>>8184261
[ ||||...||| ] 100^200 times
if I can do it for [ | ] I can do it for 100^200.

>>8184261
are you familiar with the concept of abstraction or are you just retarded?

>>8184271
prove it
>>8184273
> not proving that a concept exists, before assuming it does
you ever do a proof before?
You can't just assume something exists.
eg, let [math] S = \sum_{i=1}^\infty i^2 [/math] is not a valid step

>>8184287
>You can't just assume something exists.
what is an axiom?

>>8184303
> having 10^200 axioms

>>8184311
i hope for your sake you are trolling.

>>8184287
abstraction is the entire basis of mathematics as we know it. no numbers exist. There is no such thing as a number. it is a concept limited to the human mind. To say the number 4 has anymore validity than 10^200 just because it can be physically represented is absolutely ridiculous.

there are more than 10^200 numbers between 1 and 2.

infinity > 10^200

>>8184326
No it's because it can be constructed.
I can define 4:=[1 1 1 1].
I cannot do this for 10^200

>>8184334
Define 10 = [||||||||||]

Define 10^2 as that multiplied by itself 2 times.

Define 10^200 as before but with 200 instead.

There, it's almost like mathematical notation was designed to allow us to represent big numbers with smaller numbers.

>>8184342
> multiplication
> does something "200 times" without showing it's possible
you know this is a foundations question right?

You bastards. Look

1. You spend no more than ~100000 symbols on describing your number
2. You have no more than 256 variants of each symbol
3. You have no more than 256^100000 numbers to use
....
4. Prove me wrong, bitchez!

>>8184347
Cut each line into 10 pieces

Now have 10^2 lines

Simply repeat this process

>>8184334
i can construct it right the fuck here: 10^200

its just a different notation.

Go ahead and construct 20 billion for me

>>8184380
come back when you learn a little mathematics, summer child
>>8184353
> Cut each line into 10 pieces
This is even harder!

>>8184385
>This is even harder!

----------

oh look

>>8184401
that's ten lines you made into one...

>>8184385
It must feel awesome feeling intellectually superior because you prescribe to the memes pushed onto universities nation wide by autists who have always taught and never built. NO NUMBER EXISTS NUMBNUTS.

>>8184404
>Open up MS paint
>Draw line
>Erase it in 10 places

>>8184408
I'm actually an engineer.
But if you're gonna argue in a foundations thread, you better have some knowledge of foundations.
>>8184412
you're really bad at this. paint has individual pixels. you cannot divide lines indefinitely.

>>8184428
>Open line in photoshop
>Scale line

>>8184428
>>8184437
Better yet

Once we have our set of lines, assign our predefined value of 10 to each segment to make counting quicker.

>>8184347
How is this even mathematics at all?
it's just some old problem of postmodernist philosophy

>>8180699
How do we know how many atoms are in the universe if we can only see a small part of it?

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001,100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002,100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003,100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000004…

(10^200)+1

Suck it down nerd

>>8182575
>Other 66%
Good luck sempai

>>8180699
If universe is infinite, then that means that there is an infinite number of atoms.

>>8180699
>>8186100
both hypothesis checked by fate

>this is what math majors talk about
may as well do philosophy

>>8186116
this is what autistic wittgenstein dicksuckers like to go on about

it'll die eventually

>>8180727
Can someone explain this pic to me

>>8185402
By making sure we're talking about the observable universe and by making some slightly egregious assumptions.

File: bfa.jpg (39KB, 550x350px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 550x350px

>>8186245
it's in the style of trashy clickbait ads, pic related to be exact. Wildburger (the guy in the picture) feels strongly that the real numbers shouldn't be used in math because he deems them unrigorous.However, most mathematicians would disagree, and there are entire fields that arise from the real numbers

>>8180674
>10^201

Would you look at that, I just broke his theory.

File: Localmom.jpg (61KB, 550x350px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 550x350px

>>8186258

File: comedy gold.png (67KB, 1449x1218px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1449x1218px

>>8186302
thanks /pol/ xdddd glad u could edit this to provide the laffs hahaha xddd

I meant why would he have anything against using real numbers. What video is it from?

>>8186306
shut up, sciencefuck

>>8186290
That's not his theory, dumbfuck.

File: 1451517956079.png (10KB, 658x579px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 658x579px

I'm pretty sure I can count to 194, OP.

>>8186367
But can you count to 194+1?

>>8186368
fuck, you got me.

watch this

1

File: fageut.png (11KB, 678x448px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 678x448px

>>8186367

>>8180727
>>8186245
>>8186258
>tfw people posting and talking 'bout the dank meme you made
This is what being a father feels like.

>>8186547
Are you gonna say that every time this is posted?

>>8186556
Yes.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
889
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100

...I give up

>>8188008
>889
fucking kill me

After seeing all these Wildburger threads I have to ask:
For what purpose?
Can we do calculations better using his axioms? Can we use his mathematics to solve real life problems (as we can with our current system)? Can his system even do simple problems like calculating derivatives?

>>8188100
An answer would be: Yes, in the sense that we'd stop wasting time on "problems" that are self-posted and only possible to formulate, in the first place, when considering odd formal constructions.
He's arguing for what not to do.

>>8188117
yes, but again: Are his systems useful? I have no problem with them being not useful as long as that is made clear. It's just that it feels as if they are praising his system as the best to be there, even though for most applications it would be useless.

File: 1430096771106.gif (444KB, 500x252px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 500x252px

>>8188008
>>8188010

>>8188192
I believe his contention is that anything his system isn't useful for is just baseless mental masturbation anyway.

>>8180674
>Reminder that you cannot count past 10^200 of any one thing in the known universe

fixed for you

>>8180674
>10^201
>11^200

shit i guess im a god now

>>8188100
>Can we do calculations better using his axioms?
No, but its not worse either
>Can we use his mathematics to solve real life problems (as we can with our current system)?

Yes

>Can his system even do simple problems like calculating derivatives?
Yes

10^200, 10^200 + 1, 10^200 + 2, 10^200 + 3...

Natural numbers do have an upper bound though, it's a special number called potato

>>8180714
>Assuming I never died

>>8180714

Then it isn't a natural number, i.e. it's not an enumerable representation of some number of things that actually exists in reality.