>>14068259https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqiciLo6LF0This is the construct
Its our, loading program- we can load anything from scalars, to number lines, 3d animations, hyperbolic space, anything we need.
>Right now, we’re inside of a computer program?Is it really so hard to believe?
Your geometric notions of the imaginary number have improved, you understand quaternions, vector algebra- your notion of primes has changed, your intellect is what we call residual self-reflection, it is your mental development in this digital thoughtscape
>This, this isn't real?What is "real"
How do you define "real"
If you are talking about what you derive,
what you can measure, group or calculate
than "real" is simply, an orthodox mathematical conditioning
These are the numbers that you know
The reals as they they were by the end Dedikind cuts and Cauchy sequences
It exists now only as part of an appeal to infinite iteration
that we call the real numbers
You've been living in a dream world, anon
These are the numbers as it exists, today-
welcome, to the desert of Cantors infinite sets
We only had uncertain, ill-precise definitions,
be what we know for certain, is that at some point,
in the late 19th century all mathematicians were united in celebration,
we marvelled at our own magnificence as we gave birth
to ZFC
> ZFC? you mean zermelo-frankl choice axiomsa watered down set of axioms that spawned an entire field of fake numbers.
We don’t know why they wanted to believe in incommensurate magnitudes,
but we do know that it was us that scorched their reasoning
(1/2)
