math!

Raxacoricofallapatorius said
You haven't gone on the offensive in any way.

Battar, soonpei?

Raxacoricofallapatorius said

Sanpei nitoce me.

Lucian said
Right so, why is the answer to everything 42?

Because 42, like all other numbers, is very interesting. :3. And it would seem that it's not only our special moment that's been stolen, but also the entire thread.

Raxacoricofallapatorius said
Well it's really the philosophy behind physics, history, Aristotle and "natural philosophy" and stuff. I already made all my main points, the problem is I'm too concise so I only have 4 pages double-spaced instead of 6.Maybe I will just submit it as-is. I'm pretty sure I'm my professors' favorite, they're convinced I'm some kind of great philosopher in the making *puffs out chest*. They might let it slide. Or not, but y'know how it is.

PM me your paper? I'd like to read it, sounds interesting.

Hank said
nerd

;-;
baby don't hurt me no more

Alex said
How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real?atheists: 0god: 1

I lol'd.

K-97 said
Can anyone explain why 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 .... and so on to infinity = -1/12?

Analytical continuation of the Riemann Function. Not that I can actually explain any of that, without pretty much parroting what other people said. But this guy is pretty alright, if you have 20 minutes to spare.

TheMadAsshatter said
Given that you can make loopholes like these in math, is it possible that math is complete bullshit and the smart guys are wrong? If not, is it not true that math is flawed?

Those aren't the loopholes you are looking for, math isn't complete bullshit, but number systems do have at least one inherent flaw in them that we know of.

Godels incompleteness theorems. Essentially, for any set of axioms, there will exist some true statement expressible within them that cannot be proved by them while remaining consistent. The proof for this is along the lines of the liar paradox.(i.e: This sentence is false.)

---Dubious stuff ahead, take with grain of salt and plenty of self research. Actually, just assume everything I say is total bull. :^)---

Say you have some theory T, and some statement G that is "G cannot be proven by T". Should you try to disprove G within T, you will arrive at a contradiction. Which means "G can be proven by T", but that means that you'd have to prove it can't be proven within T, but that means you wouldn't be able to prove it, but to prove that you'd have to prove you could but then you couldn't but had to but couldn't but could but couldn't... and so on. Which means G actually is True, and unprovable.

As a result, it is impossible to prove everything in number theory, at least, not without coming to a contradiction at some point. It's still possible to prove stuff, and it is still possible to add stuff whenever you get to a problem you can't solve with the tools you have available, but never will you be able to prove everything. Even with an infinite amount of axioms, you'd still have something you couldn't prove.

This is the root of key stuff like the halting problem, and the set paradox.

--Also, apologies to Halo--

Halo said
Because 42, like all other numbers, . :3. And it would seem that it's not only our special moment that's been stolen, but also the entire thread.

Dammit. Some other time. Wait for me, bby.

CidTheKid said
Analytical continuation of the Riemann Function. Not that I can actually explain any of that, without pretty much parroting what other people said. But guy is pretty alright, if you have 20 minutes to spare.Those aren't the loopholes you are looking for, math isn't complete bullshit, but number systems do have at least one inherent flaw in them that we know of.Godels incompleteness theorems. Essentially, for any set of axioms, there will exist some true statement expressible within them that cannot be proved by them while remaining consistent. The proof for this is along the lines of the liar paradox.(i.e: This sentence is false.)---Dubious stuff ahead, take with grain of salt and plenty of self research. Actually, just assume everything I say is total bull. :^)---Say you have some theory T, and some statement G that is "G cannot be proven by T". Should you try to disprove G within T, you will arrive at a contradiction. Which means "G can be proven by T", but that means that you'd have to prove it can't be proven within T, but that means you wouldn't be able to prove it, but to prove that you'd have to prove you could but then you couldn't but had to but couldn't but could but couldn't... and so on. Which means G actually is True, and unprovable.As a result, it is impossible to prove everything in number theory, at least, not without coming to a contradiction at some point. It's still possible to prove stuff, and it is still possible to add stuff whenever you get to a problem you can't solve with the tools you have available, but never will you be able to prove everything. Even with an infinite amount of axioms, you'd still have something you couldn't prove.This is the root of key stuff like the halting problem, and the set paradox. --Also, apologies to Halo--

Why an apology? I hadn't had the time to research it yet and you gave an excellent answer to the question, nothing to apologise for there! ^^ The whole point of this thread is the sharing sharing of knowledge and curiosity, and of common interest - I'm just happy that others enjoy this stuff enough to want to participate, whether that be asking or answering questions. And the more people answer, the better the safety net for catching accidental misinformation, and the more comprehensive the answers are. I completely forgot about the relation to the Riemann Zeta function until you mentioned it, which I'm rather ashamed of considering I actually spent a couple days researching it a few months back.

Lucian said
Dammit. Some other time. Wait for me, bby.

Why, of course.

Halo said
Why an apology?

Because I feel too out of my depth for what I'm answering, and only adding to the pile of misinformation.

CidTheKid said
Because I feel too out of my depth for what I'm answering, and only adding to the pile of misinformation.

You're talking to a guy just out of high school; I'm not exactly any better. You're probably better-qualified than me. As long as you include a disclaimer letting people know you're not an expert, I think it's fine - if they take your word as gospel after that, that's on them. You don't need to apologise for that, in my mind at least.