Big Number Theory?

saved

>>8434081
Spoiler Alert: He doesn't solve shit

>proof: only numbers less than 100^200 exist and I've got a list of their decompositions right here

>>8435380
Shit, he might solve reimann the same way

>>8435380
>>8435391
MADMAN
A
D
M
A
N

>>8435380
But what about 100^200+1.

>>8435523
Just as meaningless as asking "well what about Planck length divided by two" in physics

So, he's proven that all of the numbers he believes in satisfy Goldbach's conjecture? Honestly, it's hard to even criticize someone who doesn't adhere the same metamathematical philosophies as I do; all that can be said is that I disagree with him. I was going to post something like, "but he has not proven the Goldbach conjecture together with the implicit caveat that it applies to all numbers permitted by, say, the Peano axioms." If someone tried arguing this point, he would retort with something about how he simply doesn't believe in the Peano axioms or that they comprise a well-defined system. How do you even communicate with a party holding underlying beliefs that contradict your own?

This is why one cannot "reason" with a faithful theist, or convince someone that their favorite conspiracy theory is a crock of shit.

>>8435630
please tell me you're trolling

>>8435734
but he didnt prove it, Goldbach's conjecture states that it holds for all natural numbers, which is defined to be unbounded. What he proved is a similar conjecture on another set of numbers which are computable.

>>8435970
But what I am saying is that "defined to be unbounded" bears no meaning to someone for whom "unbounded" is not well-defined.

>>8435380
But then the list would contain more than 10^200 symbols

>>8436264
It doesnt matter, proofs and axioms are social constructs,

"defined to be unbounded" doesnt have to have any meaning to him, the fact that it does to other people splits the set of his natural numbers and other peoples natural numbers into two sets that from his perspective may be identical, but is not from the perspective of his audience. To criticize him you dont focus on the construction of the set, but rather on the non-universality of his world view.

>>8435630
You do realise that the whole "Planck Length is the minimum distance" thing is a meme that can be traced back to some crank citing his bullshit paper on the wikipedia page?

The Planck Length has no known fundamental significance as far as we know, the only real meaningful property it has is being about the sort of length scale where quantum gravity would be needed to explain stuff.

>>8436355
>can be traced back to some crank citing his bullshit paper on the wikipedia [sic] page
there are multiple hypotheses where there is a minimum length on the order of the plank length

>>8436376
There are a few which say it's of the order of the minimum measurable length and one that says the Planck Area (not length) is the quantum of area but they are all currently untestable theories of quantum gravity so there's no real reason to subscribe to any of them right now.

What I'm talking about though is this guy who linked some bullshit paper of his that tried to use existing physics to prove that it was some sort of minimum length. Check out the wikipedia talk page on the Planck Length to see what I'm talking about. The culprit is some crank called Alexander Klimets, googling his name brings up a viXra profile, which should be enough to tell you how credible he is.

>>8434081
Fuck, I guess I can go ahead and say I've found a pattern to the primes for all numbers I believe in. I only have 10 fingers, that's as many numbers as god wanted us to have.

>>8436345
If it's a social construct (which I do agree with), then it is the superposition of agreeing views on its definition, which manifestly permits his differing view.

>>8434081
Can someone please tell me while Norman Wildburger is a meme?

>>8436333
checkmate ultrafinitists