How long would it take me to count to Grahams number?

>>8749985


bout tree fiddy

File: photo.jpg (116KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 900x900px

>>8749985
You cant because there arent enough numbers in the universe

>>8750014
Says who

>>8750014
Why does wildberger claim the biggest number one can work with is 10^200 because it's the number of plank cubes in our universe? There's no way he can rearrange all the plank cubes and make some use of that number, even the number of particles on the earth would be too liberal a bound. And if he can work with numbers close to 10^200 without doing actual operations on plank cubes then why do we need such unrealistic bound at all? It would make as much (or even more) sense to say there infinitely many naturals.

>>8750031
Norman J. Wildberger

>>8750037
Can he back this claim up otherwise than by saying "I don't like infinity and every definition of naturals other than kindergarten counting sticks definition is counterintuitive, therefore wrong"?

>>8750034
All I was thinking all the time is MAYBE there is a use if we introduce a bound.

Like for factoring, maybe not having a limit is hiding information.

I thought the universe was infinite

>>8750044
a 40:00 backup of his claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA

at 5:00 he gets backup by gauss and Poincaré

>>8750052
at 10:30 he wreks math

File: Worlds_greatest_living_mathman.jpg (22KB, 749x155px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 749x155px

>>8750044
>Implying you can argue with [math] this [/math] reasoning

The man is a logical juggernaut, and what are you? Just some faggot on a Taiwanese rice farming forum.

>>8749985
You wouldn't be able to because while Grahams number may have a representation small enough to fit in our universe, there are numbers smaller than it that do not. Therefore since you would never be able to say, write, or represent the majority of numbers smaller than Grahams number you could never 'count up to it'. Not in our universe at least.

>>8750050
>I thought the universe was infinite
Ya got memed, son.

>>8750067
I think the guy is right. I totally get what he is saying and I think the most people are just mentally not capable of thinking that clear and are in fact idiots.

Yes I called you an idiot.

>>8750045
But pulling the bounds off your ass hides even more information, also it breaks our familiar properties, that is we can have natural numbers that in sum don't give a natural number or can't be added at all

>>8750078
I meant what if we call the bound B and we could stretch it as long as we can (infinitly) but only because we do not know the actual number of the bound. But it still exists.

So you would integrade from n->B instead of n->inf

>>8750078
>b-b-but it makes math harder!
kek

>>8750072
Fuck you it is infinite fuck you

>>8749985
You would take Graham's number of seconds to count to Graham's number, assuming that you count one number per second

>>8749985
It is essentially impossible to convey this amount of time. You would need a power tower with more numbers in the tower than atoms in the universe, and thats of course vastly smaller than the number itself.

>>8750089
If you call the bound B it is easy to show that there is at least one number strictly bigger than B. Then by setting new B to old B + 1 we can inductively prove that there is no biggest natural number. In fact proving that naturals and reals don't have upper bound and biggest elements is one of the first thing you do in analysis class.

>>8750162
No, it doesn't make maths harder but useless.

>>8749985
probably around -1/12

>>8750052
This is the first time Ive watched Wildberger..

I've always considered Math an invention as opposed to a discovery. I think hes playing off of this premise. The concept of infinite infinities makes sense in the aspect of encode-able information schemes. He alludes to this when talking about Real numbers being the necessary coding scheme of computers.

An infinity of Naturals is unbounded, useless to computation. Imagine every bit in a computer having to be some Natural number unlike any other that already exists in the system. Its like a number system with base infinity, each number being a symbol unto itself. Which is the point Franklin was making I think.

I didnt sleep last night and am running on coffee and cigs, so take this as ramblings.

>>8750266
>>8750375
Me, just read your post.

The reals themselves do not have an upper bound. [math]\mathbb{N}[/math] doesnt either, but it also has no internal bound infinities.

There is no infinite number of numbers between, say, 23 and some n. or n and n.

But there is an infinite amount of numbers between 1.001 and 1.0009 (I think thats right, you know what I mean)

On the space of real numbers there exists some infinite amount of numbers between n and any m (or so we would like to believe)

>>8750386
So you're saying that there's no integer between two consecutive naturals and that any interval in R is equinumerous with R, but I don't know what does it have to do with wildberger's upper bound of naturals

About as much as it takes.

>>8750067
Holy shit how will mathematics ever recover?

>>8750659
That any faffing about with infinties is masturabatory shuffling of symbols. Sure its possible that you can conceive of hyper large numbers, but so what?

The numbers exist as a variable n, but not as a computable sum. The concept of infinity is so nuts, its hard to even concieve of concieving.

>>8753600
You can call them useless or you can call them non-existent; you can't do both.

Longer than 1 minute.

>>8753667
Only correct answer in this thread tbqh lads

>>8750063
what the hell...is this niga serious?
>we can't express most numbers (using the arbitrary base 10) in our universe so they don't exist

>>8749985

About a week, assuming you take roughly eight hours a day for sleep and another two hours for eating / bathing.

>>8753600
>That any faffing about with infinties is masturabatory shuffling of symbols.

This is all math is, period. Shifting around symbols within an established framework of axioms IS math.

>>8750014
what would he say 0.999... equals?

>>8754925
>missing the point