Now that the dust has settled...

File: wilderberg btfo.png (34KB, 656x765px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 656x765px

>>8628521

>>8628554
is that wolfram alpha ?

>>8628559

Yes.

>>8628521
>>8628554
Does he actually believe there's just a hole in this curve at 0 and that it's not actually a smooth line?

I thought that picture with the circle was a joke

>>8628554
>[math] \approx [/math]

so basically it doesn't exist

>>8628583
Going that route you can't prove a series converges unless you show what it converges to

>>8628521
Actually, since there aren't any numbers greater than 10^300, any number between -10^-300 and 10^-300 is pretty much the same as zero. And there are many rationals for which p(r) is in that range.

>>8628609

>aren't any numbers greater than 10^300

There are at least numbers up to g64.

>>8628610
no. there are infinitely many numbers.

>>8628611

Well yeah, but g64 is the highest known number to actually have physical revelance.

>>8628613
There's nothing really special about Graham's Number though. It's an upper bound that happens to work for a certain proof. In fact it's not even the least upper bound for that proof any more.

Haha, just as I suspected.

Bunch of BRAINLETS can't give me A SINGLE 'r' value that satisfies the equation exactly.

btfo

>>8628580
There is a hole, actually. Infinitely many. Those holes are called irrationals and what we do is simply fill those holes with equivalence classes of cauchy sequences (an infinite set of infinite sets) or with cuts (a set of two infinite sets).

Pick your poison. How deep can infinity go before being meaningless? Wildberger says 1 infinity is one too mant infinities. But ZFC fags believe in infinitely many sets made of infinitely many sets of infinitely many sets of infinitely many elements.

>>8628613
>physical

I don't think the problem to which g64 is a solution is anything to do with physics

>>8628521
Wildberger would have been correct on his claim had FTA state that a closed form solution exists.

>>8628521
It only says a solution exists, which >>8628554 proves. The nonexistence of a quintic formula means it can't necessarily be found exactly.

>>8629011
>Wildberger says 1 infinity is one too mant infinities.
Yes but he's willing to circumvent that, sometimes. He's more than happy to say that sqrt(2) exists as an algebraic construct like i, so long as you don't try to say it has a decimal representation.

There is fundamentally no difference at all between claiming that the number defined by "a solution to x^2-2 = 0" exists and claiming that the number defined by "a solution to r^5-2r+4 = 0" exists.