didnāt really get anywhere with this on the bird app so trying again here:
anybody know anything about mathematical logic? I wanna argue about the continuum hypothesis and Skolemās paradox if youāre into that sort of thing ā¦
Discussion
š¶š
Happy V Day! https://youtu.be/P9QIJkffBt4
Greg Foss isnāt here yet?
definitely would be a popcorn grab material. since I'm ignorant on those subj
Ha, no, but Iāve had the same problem. I want to argue about TREE(3) and Grahamās Number, but no one cares.
OMG I CARE LETāS ARGUE š
Ha ā you do know about this! Thatās a big number, but Rayo(10^100) is bigger, albeit a bit of a cheat.
I got mad half way through reading this because everybody knows Rayo is cheating, but you repented, so weāre all good.
Fair! But the fascinating thing about the TREE function is that comes from a simple game of sorts, whereas Grahamās number (for example) is built mechanistically. TREE is like evolution, Grahamās like AI. And G(1) is 3 ā ā ā ā3, but TREE(1) is only 1! Amazing it overtakes it by a mile at 3. I think about that a lot.
@taleb
I said āknow anything aboutā, not āenjoy publicly bullshitting about to feign profundityā.
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.
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
Iām glad someone here is talking about cardinals and not the other thing
Iām a simple pleb, canāt argue that stuff with you but followed #plebchain š¤āļø
I don't know if he is in here but https://twitter.com/rperezmarco could be up for it
oh wow - i did not know there was a whole philosophy world behind maths. Probably wont geek out so hard (lol, sorry), my closest satisfaction was dabbing back into fourier and laplace from missing it and having many wow moments over matrix wide usage past few yrs (and itching to figure out the probability model for nostr relays) . Will be an active reader on this !
Thanks will add to my reading mix! I think engineering math is very artistic, stats is developed on assumptions to validate assumptions and crypto math is your personal bodyguard - rest might be out of my bandwidth!