>This is what mathematicians actually believe

>>9130028
It was already proven to be possible in real world too.

>>9130028
It's not about belief. It's just a certain axiomatic system yielding certain theoretical results. There's nothing to "believe" in.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. Math doesn't have to be "real" to be insightful.

>>9130031
I've read some articles about possible applications, but I'm not too convinced. I actually like the idea that it's just a theoretical result.
If you care to share a more concrete application of the theorem I don't know about (I'm no expert) I'd be happy to hear.

>>9130028
The ultimate proof that the continuum is a lie and calculus is a sham.

>>9130028
I stopped caring about math when I was introduced to the concept of real numbers. What a crock of shit. If your equation can only be solved by inventing numbers that can't exist, like some kind of math deity , then you are fucking wrong and the math is flawed. Same for algebra solutions that basically say "the correct answer is whatever the correct answer is". Thats what the math said transcribed to words but god forbid if i wrote in down in english instead of the ancient math runes the teacher word mark me wrong.

Math is logical and numbers never lie my ass. Math is just as flawed as any other human construct.

>>9130047
t. brainlet

Follow Wildberger

>>9130036
>If you care to share a more concrete application of the theorem I don't know about (I'm no expert) I'd be happy to hear.
The Lord took 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish and then applied banch-tarski a bunch of times to feed 5000 men.

>>9130069
At last!!! A scientific proof!!!

File: polezoom3.png (104KB, 972x830px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 972x830px

I think I came up with a good reason for it when I was arguing against the Reimann hypothesis

http://vixra.org/abs/1703.0073

>>9130031
>already proven
>possible in real world
In other news, I have a working wormhole portal to your mom's vag. In essence, I am your father, and I am very disappointed.

>>9130069
kek

>>9130099
>vixra
This really makes me think

>>9130099
Fuck you. Now I'm angry. I am tired of this shit. RA IS TRUE. You know why? Because it RA isn't true then there is literally no point in mathematics.

3000 years of math with only one goal: find the pattern behind prime numbers. We invented rational numbers for that. We invented real numbers and complex numbers for that. We invented algebra to fornalize congruences and gaussian integers that helped in finding patterns in numbers. And then all of this culminated in the findings of Riemann and Euler. Euler gave us that the riemann zeta function can be written as a product over primes. Riemann conjectured that it could be written as a product over its roots. If we find the roots then we find the primes and then math ends, the universe ends and we reach the end credits of the universe and meet the creator.

But if RA is false then we are FUCKED. There would be no pattern behind prime numbers and all we have done is useless. We might aswell kill ourselves if RA is false.

>>9130099
Fuck you. Now I'm angry. I am tired of this shit. RH IS TRUE. You know why? Because if RH isn't true then there is literally no point in mathematics.

3000 years of math with only one goal: find the pattern behind prime numbers. We invented rational numbers for that. We invented real numbers and complex numbers for that. We invented algebra to fornalize congruences and gaussian integers that helped in finding patterns in numbers. And then all of this culminated in the findings of Riemann and Euler. Euler gave us that the riemann zeta function can be written as a product over primes. Riemann proved that it could be written as a product over its roots. If we find the roots then we find the primes and then math ends, the universe ends and we reach the end credits of the universe and meet the creator.

But if RH is false then we are FUCKED. There would be no pattern behind prime numbers and all we have done is useless. We might aswell kill ourselves if RH is false.

>>9130099
There's so much wrong in this paper. Your definition of cardinal numbers is way off, for one, and the sphere theorem is unrelated to sphere eversion.
You also seem to misunderstand topology and the Riemann sphere.