I love to argue about math. Warning though I am trained as a physicist so I am essentially a the math equivalent of a shitcoiner.
Discussion
haha, I think you are more like the equivalent of a core dev. you spend all your time being super pedantic about how it actually works and none at all bullshitting about how beautiful it is as a platonic ideal.
a shitcoiner in this context would be a macroeconomist. they take our beautiful platonic ideal, totally fail to understand it, and apply it somewhere it makes no sense.
but okay, anyway, what do you think of the continuum hypothesis and why is your answer so stupid, please?
By stating the question like this it seems that either, you don't take it serious or wouldn't be able to take the answer serious.
Curious if either is the case.
And, if it's about the answer (because, to me as a non-mathematician, can totally relate to the absurdity of the hypothesis itself :p), why?
It feels pretty obviously true. Either something is continuous or it is not. We can already approximate continuous things with countable things as good as we need. If there is something in-between there it would be continuous for all I care.
This is a typical physicists argument. "I do not see a use for this to be true" + "handwavy intuition" = proof