/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12451934

863KiB, 1269x656, realnumbersareascam.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 08:51:11 2020 No.12451934 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12451943 >>12451954 >>12452696 >>12452738 >>12453372 >>12454650

so /sci/, whats e + pi ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 08:56:39 No.12451943 Report

Quoted By: >>12452209

>>12451934
it's a meta number

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 09:02:17 No.12451954 Report

Quoted By:

>>12451934
let x be e + pi

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 09:06:28 No.12451958 Report

Quoted By: >>12452255

epi, I would assume

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 11:39:51 No.12452209 Report

Quoted By: >>12452226

>>12451943
I.e. not an actual number and shouldnt be treated like one. Good answer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 11:49:17 No.12452226 Report

Quoted By: >>12453494 >>12453817

>>12452209
yeah let's start saying meta numbers instead of irrational numbers and don't forget to emphasize that they're not actual numbers on every occasion. also we should rename real analysis to "theory of equivalent rational approximations". I think this should solve the issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 12:03:40 No.12452255 Report

Quoted By: >>12452709

>>12451958
That's multiplication, not addition, you absolute brainlet

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 12:32:09 No.12452307 Report

Quoted By:

Imagine if e*pi had an algebraic representation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 12:34:30 No.12452313 Report

Quoted By: >>12452719

ITT: Mathlets

$\sqrt{3}/2 = e/pi$

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 14:16:03 No.12452617 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 14:38:25 No.12452696 Report

Quoted By:

>>12451934
It's a sum of e and pi aka $e + /pi$

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 14:41:47 No.12452709 Report

Quoted By:

>>12452255
>he doesnt know what an epi morphism is

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 14:44:05 No.12452719 Report

Quoted By: >>12453070 >>12453075

>>12452313
Have a (You). I actually checked this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 14:50:42 No.12452738 Report

Quoted By:

>>12451934
It's the sum of the reciprocals of this beautiful infinite series of finite strokes.
1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6, 24, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 99, 120, 195, 195, 195, 195, 195, 195, 195, 195, 323, 323, 323, 323, 323, 323, 323, 323, 483, 483, 483, 483, 483, 483, 483, 483, 675, 675, 675, 675, 675, 675, 675, 675, 720, 899, 899, 899, 899, 899, 899, 899, 899, ...

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 15:01:35 No.12452768 Report

Quoted By: >>12452900 >>12453152

>What is $e + \pi$
$e+\pi \;=\; \sum_{n=0}^\infty \, \left[\frac{1}{n!}+4 \cdot \frac{(-1)^n}{2n+1}\right].\!$

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 15:25:44 No.12452854 Report

Quoted By: >>12452866

The first positive root of cos((x-e)/2).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 15:29:17 No.12452866 Report

Quoted By: >>12453063

>>12452854
did you mean to divide out e?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 15:36:53 No.12452893 Report

Quoted By:

e+?=?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 15:37:55 No.12452900 Report

Quoted By:

>>12452768
e+\pi \;=\; \sum_{n=0}^\infty \, \left[\frac{1}{n!}+4 \cdot \frac{(-1)^n}{2n+1}\right].\!

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO hotdog.png, 515KiB, 451x452

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 15:41:14 No.12452923 Report

Quoted By: >>12452952 >>12453364

e + pi = pie

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 15:47:41 No.12452952 Report

Quoted By:

>>12452923
Immeasurable IQ response

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 16:12:30 No.12453063 Report

Quoted By:

>>12452866
nevermind, I see that OP asks for e+pi while the Wildburger pick speaks about e*pi

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 16:14:15 No.12453070 Report

Quoted By:

>>12452719
if
$3\pi = 4e$
you would have probably encountered it before

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 16:15:27 No.12453075 Report

Quoted By: >>12453100

>>12452719
If $(e/\pi)^2$ was three fourths, you'd probably encountered it before

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 16:22:42 No.12453100 Report

Quoted By:

>>12453075
I figured it was BS, but why not give it a shot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 16:34:58 No.12453152 Report

Quoted By: >>12453160 >>12453165 >>12454741

>>12452768
Ok and what is it? Add the numbers and tell me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 16:37:18 No.12453160 Report

Quoted By: >>12453165 >>12453296

>>12453152
no you add the numbers bitch and tell me

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 16:37:58 No.12453165 Report

Quoted By: >>12453296

>>12453152
>>12453160
Adding numbers is for grad students

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:08:18 No.12453296 Report

Quoted By: >>12453325

>>12453160
>>12453165
I don't claim to have solved it. The burden of proof is on you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:13:15 No.12453325 Report

Quoted By: >>12453332

>>12453296
Solved what? How to add fractions? You can google that, I'm sure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:14:39 No.12453332 Report

Quoted By: >>12453346

>>12453325
Add infinitely many fractions, yes. Good luck. If you claim to be able to do it, then do it. Or at least tell me if the sum is rational.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:18:49 No.12453346 Report

Quoted By: >>12453356

>>12453332
Who in this thread ever made either of those claims?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:20:17 No.12453356 Report

Quoted By: >>12453396 >>12453402 >>12454191

>>12453346
The retards who write shit like
$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \, \left[\frac{1}{n!}+4 \cdot \frac{(-1)^n}{2n+1}\right]$
implying you can add infinitely many terms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:22:05 No.12453364 Report

Quoted By: >>12453817

>>12452923
I like Jar Jar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:24:56 No.12453372 Report

Quoted By: >>12453375

>>12451934
what would the number 1 look like if we used a base-pi system instead of a base 10 system

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:25:45 No.12453375 Report

Quoted By:

>>12453372
It would be
1

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:31:46 No.12453396 Report

Quoted By:

>>12453356
>implying
No such thing is implied.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:32:47 No.12453402 Report

Quoted By:

>>12453356
based

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 17:49:52 No.12453494 Report

Quoted By:

>>12452226
If we actually did that then simply renaming real analysis will not be enough, most of the field would have to go since it assumes real numbers are actual numbers that can be added, compared, multiplied, and taken limits of.
You're very naive if you think the issue is just with the terminology. The implications of starting to look realistically at these "real numbers" are huge.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO meta-numbers.jpg, 79KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 18:54:39 No.12453817 Report

Quoted By: >>12453834 >>12454077

>>12453364
yeah me too I like Phantom menace the movie very much

>>12452226
Wow stupid. You really think the meta-numbers are just an alternate name for the irrationals? No, the meta-numbers constitute a wholly new theory of their own. First of all, meta-numbers are not numbers in any conventional sense, whileas irrational numbers are despite all their logical inconsistencies treated like any other number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 18:58:27 No.12453834 Report

Quoted By: >>12454088

>>12453817
The people you're talking to never really reflected on the real numbers. After interacting with them a lot it seems like most of them believe the reals are as real as natural or rational numbers, which cannot be further from the truth. They really have no idea what they're talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:00:43 No.12454077 Report

Quoted By: >>12454192

>>12453817
>Wow stupid. You really think the meta-numbers are just an alternate name for the irrationals? No, the meta-numbers constitute a wholly new theory of their own. First of all, meta-numbers are not numbers in any conventional sense, whileas irrational numbers are despite all their logical inconsistencies treated like any other number.
yeah I know, I don't treat e and pi as numbers. the plus sign in pi+e is not addition of numbers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:02:51 No.12454087 Report

Quoted By:

wildburger pls go

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:03:03 No.12454088 Report

Quoted By: >>12454149

>>12453834
>Natural numbers are real.
Really? Can you pick one up? Can you touch it? Show me a picture of a natural number; not your representation of a natural number, but a picture of a tangible natural number.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:17:56 No.12454149 Report

Quoted By: >>12454332

>>12454088
Ok let me explain my position of this.
-Natural numbers are abstract objects. They are immaterial.
-However, there are many equivalent ways to implement them, to translate the statements and theorems about natural numbers into concrete questions with definite answers.
-The implementations are not natural numbers themselves but they are useful tools in areas outside of mathematics and they demonstrate that when we're talking about natural numbers, it's not hard to translate the abstract statements into definite, concrete statements about concrete things.
-Nothing even remotely similar is possible for real numbers. There are no models and nobody even knows what they're talking about when they're talking about the " real numbers".

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Timothy Gowers - A very short in (...).png, 108KiB, 871x375

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:26:49 No.12454191 Report

Quoted By: >>12454199

>>12453356

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:26:59 No.12454192 Report

Quoted By: >>12454311

>>12454077
But you do. You say things like let x and y be real and consider f(x + y)/y etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:28:21 No.12454199 Report

Quoted By:

>>12454191
This cope stops working as soon as you try adding two real numbers together. Tim Gowers really didn't think the issue through on this one, or you posted it out of context, or he's just trying to indoctrinate future mathematicians by lying to them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:54:16 No.12454311 Report

Quoted By:

>>12454192
no, I say they're either numbers or meta numbers

El Arcón

El Arcón Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:55:37 No.12454320 Report

Quoted By:

a little less than six.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 20:57:42 No.12454332 Report

Quoted By: >>12454552

>>12454149
>Just refuse to accept any of the five or so definitions of real numbers that exist without even looking at them.
>There are no models for real numbers.
Why do you even pretend to know anything beyond high school math? You just parrot whatever Wildberger says in his videos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 21:33:05 No.12454473 Report

Quoted By:

I've never met a number I didn't like.
I was a little confused when I met a four, but I figured it out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 21:56:58 No.12454552 Report

Quoted By:

>>12454332
>>Just refuse to accept any of the five or so definitions of real numbers that exist without even looking at them.
I understand the definitions of real numbers way better than you ever will. None of them work. They're not even definitions, they just move the goalpost, pretending to have defined something when all they do is to push the vagueness of the concept of a "real number" to the concept of a "set".
>There are no models for real numbers.
This is still true. You quoting doesn't make it false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 21:57:49 No.12454554 Report

Quoted By:

Can we merge these discussions?
>>12447263

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 22:01:24 No.12454576 Report

Quoted By: >>12454658 >>12454668

I can't believe I genuinely used to think real numbers make sense in my first two years of undergrad. What a joke.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 22:08:52 No.12454618 Report

Quoted By:

I responed him 2.7+error+3.1+error=5.8+2error->calc more digits, reduce error. He never responded. Prof. Wild has really something against the Axiom i.e every bounded set in reals has the least upper bound. I understand this is very strong and bold axiom. But he nor I cannot find replacing system of computing, quadrances and spreads are very stupid thing from him, he is better than that. If something has an approximation e.g. Pi has approximation of 3.14, how could one say that pi as number wouldn't exist?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 22:16:11 No.12454650 Report

Quoted By:

>>12451934
A_e := A_{1,2} : e
A_pi
e + pi = e + pi.
QED
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 22:18:17 No.12454658 Report

Quoted By:

>>12454576
same here

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 22:20:34 No.12454668 Report

Quoted By:

>>12454576
Pretending you went to college doesn't make it so. Also community college doesn't count.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2020 22:40:05 No.12454741 Report

Quoted By:

>>12453152
He just did

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches