Clearly, proof by induction is the most advanced way of

>>8522289
kys cs major

>>8522293
>ad hominem
Meanwhile, in CS we are writing AI to replace pure math. Enjoy your non-existent careers.

>>8522400
The AI that replaces pure mathematicians will not be written by CS majors. It will be written by AI that researches AI and has replaced those CS majors.

>>8522289
Non-constructive proof by contradiction, invoking the axiom of choice is the most advanced way of proving things in math.

>>8522403
>It will be written by AI that researches AI and has replaced those CS majors.
Too soon.

>>8522289
Theorem: All CS majors are brainlets.

Lemma: Either all CS majors are brainlets, or all are non-brainlets.

Proof of lemma: By induction on the number of CS majors. The case of n=1 CS majors is trivial.

Now consider the case of n+1 CS majors, for some n.

There are two cases: either the first CS major is a brainlet or not.

Consider the former case. By the inductive hypothesis, the first n CS majors are either all brainlets or all non-brainlets. Since the first major is a brainlet by assumption, the rest of the first n are as well. Now we need only show that the last major is a brainlet. It follows by the inductive hypothesis that the last n CS majors are either all brainlets or all non-brainlets. But we have already shown that the first n-1 CS majors in this group are brainlets. Therefore, the last CS major is as well.

A formally identical argument shows that if the first CS major is a non-brainlet, then all of the others are also non-brainlets. This completes the inductive step.

End Proof of Lemma

Proof of Theorem: As evidenced by this thread, there is at least one CS major who is a brainlet. Therefore, it is not the case that all CS majors are non-brainlets, and an application of the lemma completes the proof.

QED

>>8522407
> invoking the axiom of choice

The biggest mistake in mathematics.

>>8522744
Real numbers were the worst mistake.

>>8522407
this is how it's done
>>8522744
>>8522762
kyselves

File: meme pro.jpg (81KB, 604x533px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 604x533px

>>8522650

a glib facsimile

File: 10873890.jpg (554KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 900x900px

>>8522744
>>8522762

IT'S INFINITY YOU GODDAMN FOOLS

>>8522762
>>8522868
wild theory is for cranks

>>8522650
Consider the case of n=1. Then n+1=2. This is the only value of n for which the sequence of the last n majors is disjoint from the sequence of the first n majors. By the inductive hypothesis, it holds that the first n majors are either all brainlets or all non-brainlets, and it also holds that the last n majors are either all brainlets or all non-brainlets, but since the two sequences are disjoint, we cannot draw the conclusion that the union of the two is either all brainlets or all non-brainlets. One could be all brainlets and the other all non-brainlets, and the inductive hypothesis would still hold.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1210.0088v1.pdf

I guess I just waisted 10 years of my life

>>8522914
>It is believed by the quantum mechanics pundits that an object can exist in many places at one time.
I accept all reasoning following from this premise but reject the premise itself. Quantum mechanics posits only that *certain elementary particles* can exist in many places at one time. (Not even that much, depending on your interpretation of the math.) The notion does not necessarily extend to objects observable at a macroscopic or even microscopic scale.

>>8522927
yep, but the thing here is, quantum mechanics actually uses a lot of basic math for its foundations, primarly linear algebra (in a hermitian space), so I think to myself how is it even possible that someone can go that far and write an insanity like this... clearly this person has no idea about the subject and is just making vague assumptions that mean nothing in math.

this vrixa is a gem btw lol

>>8522956
meant hilbert lol my bad, sorry for my english tho

>>8522909
yup that's the flaw

obvious once you see it, but it took me a minute the first time i saw this argument