Prove me wrong, anon.

*unzips principia mathematica*
heh.... that's where you're wrong, m'lady

File: blocks_your_path.jpg (89KB, 946x845px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 946x845px

>>9048251
>*Blocks your path*
What did you say to her?!

Why the jew star?

is she(he) some sort of mathemajewcian?

>>9048340
Source:
>http://topcow.wikia.com/wiki/Tilly_Grimes

>>9048244
>[math]\infty[/math]

So what about an `infinite set'? Well, to begin with, you should say precisely what the term means. Okay, if you don't, at least someone should. Putting an adjective in front of a noun does not in itself make a mathematical concept. Cantor declared that an `infinite set' is a set which is not finite. Surely that is unsatisfactory, as Cantor no doubt suspected himself. It's like declaring that an `all-seeing Leprechaun' is a Leprechaun which can see everything. Or an `unstoppable mouse' is a mouse which cannot be stopped. These grammatical constructions do not create concepts, except perhaps in a literary or poetic sense. It is not clear that there are any sets that are not finite, just as it is not clear that there are any Leprechauns which can see everything, or that there are mice that cannot be stopped. Certainly in science there is no reason to suppose that `infinite sets' exist. Are there an infinite number of quarks or electrons in the universe? If physicists had to hazard a guess, I am confident the majority would say: No. But even if there were an infinite number of electrons, it is unreasonable to suppose that you can get an infinite number of them all together as a single `data object'.

>>9048351
If you were a CS major, I'd be calling this verbose.

>>9048348
... I thought this was Incase.

>>9048348
>>quasi-supernatural math abilities
So like Von Neumann

File: Tips Fedora.jpg (53KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x640px

>>9048244
Prove yourself right first.

>>9048275
Distract him with a cigarette

>>9048244
Is this now a Stepjan thread?!