Are infinity and uncountability the worst ideas in mathematics?

>>8270985
No

>>8270985
They are placeholders until we can enumerate.

>>8270985
No. They are simple and useful. There exist transcendental numbers? Obvious. The very foundations of measure theory being at all meaningful? Requires countable vs uncountable infinities. The distinction is elegant and inextricable from mainstream mathematics.

File: ishiggyburger.png (156KB, 549x349px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 549x349px

>>8270985

>>8270985
Finitism is the worst idea in mathematics.

>>8271062
Seeing your handmade template reused feels like seeing a child grow up. My clockmed meme has come far.

>>8270985
Admit it, it´s gold dust...

>>8270985
I do agree OP.
These are some of the worst ideas in mathematics.
Though infinity has its usefulness when finding limits. Though again you could argue that we don't need infinity and still find a limit as it approaches arbitrary large numbers.

There no bigger infinities, the idea is flawed in itself. Even cantor's proof is illogical. You have to reach the end of infinity to crate the new number... Why can't people understand that...

>>8271169
You forgot to sign your post "t. Someone who doesn't understand Cantor's proof."

>>8271169
>There no bigger infinities, the idea is flawed in itself. Even cantor's proof is illogical. You have to reach the end of infinity to crate the new number...
No you don't, retard. The diagonalization is an infinite decimal with every digit determined by the numbers on your supposed list. If you don't understand how real numbers work then there is no point in even discussing a proof that they cannot be listed.

>>8271169
>You have to reach the end of infinity to crate the new number
nah dog

There just isn't a one to one correspondence between countable and uncountable infinities.

>>8270985
Isn't this problem solvable if you assume that the gold and the silver balls in the second box are 50/50?

File: 1419955984626.png (296KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 500x375px

>>8271717
So infinity/infinity = 1?

You have to define "at random."

greater than 50%

>>8271717
>assume
go to hell

>>8271169
Sqrt(2) certainly doesn't exist

>>8271760
Yep. The only number that doesn't equal 1 when divided by itself is 0.

>>8271931
I really hope you're meming here

>>8271791
it's 50-50%

either it's random or it isn't

>>8270985
You have approximately 3 to 1 odds.
And yes.

>>8272168
False. There is no specified probability measure.

>>8270985
This problem is not solvable. The reason is that you are supposed to pick a box "at random", but it's impossible to put a probability measure on the space of boxes.

>>8272199
Kek.

a lot of people say its 50/50, but thats incorrect.

its actually 250, since we are dealing with equal numbers of balls separated equally but drawn unequally and with prior knowledge of the outcome, the chances are stacked multiplicatively to be 50x50 = 250

This gives a 250/50/50x5 = 0.5 = 50% chance. Any brainlet saying anything other than 50% doesnt understand statistics and is probably just an unoriginal applied math learn-and-apply-by-rote-memorization scrub as they all are.

Hope this helps :^)

>>8272264
50/50 (colloquial way of saying 50 you do, 50 you don't) *is* 50%

it equals 50% plus another percentage based on (density of uncountable gold)/(density of uncountable silver)

File: 220px-Guillaume_de_l'Hôpital.jpg (25KB, 220x268px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 220x268px

100%

>>8271892
>Sqrt(2) certainly doesn't exist
It exists, but it can't be drawn on the number line, because it doesn't have a finite position.
You can just approximate it, or consider a range of the number line to represent it.

>>8271285
>There just isn't a one to one correspondence between countable and uncountable infinities.
There is a 1 to 1 correspondence, you are just limiting the integers to numbers of finite digit length. If you drop that notion, then there is no problem in enumerating all irrational numbers. Further more, when you refer to the uncountability of the irrational numbers, you are referring to numbers which can grow to infinity in 2 dimensions. The infinity before the dot and the infinity after the dot. But as we all know there are one dimensional curves which can intersect all points in an infinite 2D plane.

>>8271221
>>8271185
But many math professors do happen to share my opinion.
Do you think they don't understand Cantor's proof either? Do you consider yourself better? (I'ts a rhetoric question.)

>>8273396
>There is a 1 to 1 correspondence; you are just limiting the integers to numbers of finite digit length. If you drop that notion, then there is no problem in enumerating all irrational numbers. Furthermore, when you refer to the uncountability of the irrational numbers, you are referring to numbers which can grow to infinity in 2 dimensions. The infinity before the dot and the infinity after the dot.

What the hell are you talking about? Every single aspect of this is absolute drivel.

>>8270985
infinity is a valid concept, it is basically a recursive loop