There is no such thing as an integer. 2 + 2 does not exist, and does not equal 4, except in unrealistic simplified models.

Show your work tho

I'd really love to hear your reasoning on this...

Inb4 broken calculator.

Start from the concept of variable infinity. The number of values between 0 and 1 is infinite; the number of values between 0 and 2 is infinite, but greater, right? Except it can't be greater, because there's no way to quantify an infinite number, and therefore no way to compare the two. A difference must exist, but it can't be quantified. If (endless)x2 is expressed, period, then (endless) must eventually overtake that quantity, because that's what (endless) means. In this sense, 1xinfinity = 2xinfinity, and thus 1=2 -- that's not a failure of mathematics or 'LOLNOSCIENCE' or whatever, it's simply a means of expressing that boundless reality (for instance, the space into which our universe must expand) and integers don't get along.

So that opens the door for a fundamental reimagining of the number system.

Now the same can be done for bounded infinity as well. We've done the thread a few times where you prove that 0.999r=1. Conceptually there is a difference, in practicality there *must* be a difference between <1 and 1, but mathematically there is not -- and the reason is simple. Integers can't account for an infinitely small difference. But we *know* there is a difference, because that's how .999r is defined -- less than one, by an infinitely small amount. Again, this isn't a case of 'LOLNOMATH,' it's just that integers are insufficient.

Okay, so if differences both infinitely great and infinitely small present challenges for absolute values, how does that impact real-world applications?

Well in simplest terms, imagine numbers as slices of pizza. If I have a pizza to divide among four people in a room, I give each person two slices, and we all have the same amount of pizza, right? But do we? If we calculated the angles with surgical precision, and weighed each slice to the µg, are the slices *identical* or simply 'almost identical?' In other words, does someone get 1 slice, and someone get 0.999r slices, and someone else get 1.00...01 slices?

Okay, but assume that you took literally every possible variation out of the equation. I mean carry this out to the point where we're measuring slices of pizza with electron telescopes -- couldn't we eventually safeguard the pizza-cutting process enough that we're producing identical slices? No. Because the very most basic building blocks of matter and energy do not simply exist. Take electrons -- at any single point in time, a quark's existence is defined as a cloud of space in which it both exists, and does not exist. The quark is a certain size, and its position is a certain area, and the two are not equal. This is the contradiction at its most basic, most irreducible level.

So what about in a complex system? Think about it. If I give you 1 Car, and I give me 1 Car, do we have the same Car? Of course not.

....and that's enough psycho math typing for Spam today.

mdk said
Start from the concept of variable infinity. The number of values between 0 and 1 is infinite; the number of values between 0 and 2 is infinite, but greater, right? Except it can't be greater, because there's no way to quantify an infinite number, and therefore no way to compare the two. A difference must exist, but it can't be quantified. If (endless)x2 is expressed, period, then (endless) must eventually overtake that quantity, because that's what (endless) means. In this sense, 1xinfinity = 2xinfinity, and thus 1=2 -- that's not a failure of mathematics or 'LOLNOSCIENCE' or whatever, it's simply a means of expressing that boundless reality (for instance, the space into which our universe must expand) and integers don't get along.So that opens the door for a fundamental reimagining of the number system. Now the same can be done for infinity as well. We've done the thread a few times where you prove that 0.999r=1. Conceptually there is a difference, in practicality there *must* be a difference between <1 and 1, but mathematically there is not -- and the reason is simple. Integers can't account for an infinitely small difference. But we *know* there is a difference, because that's how .999r is defined -- less than one, by an infinitely small amount. Again, this isn't a case of 'LOLNOMATH,' it's just that integers are insufficient.Okay, so if differences both infinitely great and infinitely small present challenges for absolute values, how does that impact real-world applications?Well in simplest terms, imagine numbers as slices of pizza. If I have a pizza to divide among four people in a room, I give each person two slices, and we all have the same amount of pizza, right? But do we? If we calculated the angles with surgical precision, and weighed each slice to the µg, are the slices *identical* or simply 'almost identical?' In other words, does someone get 1 slice, and someone get 0.999r slices, and someone else get 1.00...01 slices? Okay, but assume that you took possible variation out of the equation. I mean carry this out to the point where we're measuring slices of pizza with electron telescopes -- couldn't we eventually safeguard the pizza-cutting process enough that we're producing identical slices? Because the very most basic building blocks of matter and energy do not simply exist. Take electrons -- at any single point in time, a quark's existence is defined as a cloud of space in which it both exists, and does not exist. The quark is a certain size, and its position is a certain area, and the two are not equal. This is the contradiction at its most basic, most irreducible level.So what about in a complex system? Think about it. If I give you 1 Car, and I give me 1 Car, do we have the same Car? Of course not.....and that's enough psycho math typing for Spam today.

... Wh-at did you even just type?

I'll address that tomorrow as it's rather late here and I'm in no state to think it through, but personally I think you've fundamentally misunderstood some things. On the other hand I'm an 18 year old, so why would you listen to me?

Let's deconstruct it differently. Using round numbers, 2.2 + 2.2 = 4.4, and rounded, that becomes 2 + 2 = 4. But 2.3 + 2.3 = 4.6, which, rounded, becomes 2 + 2 = 5. If you assume that practical entities are, at some level, rounded -- in other words a glass of water = 1 glass to a certain margin of variation or standard deviation -- then the concept of a distinct mathematical value is moot.

Let's use a scientific example -- temperature. If you measure a surface temperature of 30-degrees Celsius, what's actually happening? You're detecting a certain amount of thermal energy, submolecular interactions between minute particles. In no instance is 30* actually 30*. The specific subatomic activity that creates energy is in a constant state of flux, and the assigned value is simply an approximation. The integer '30' is an imaginary simplification, and over time, the remainder of that simplification becomes tangible.

You aren't supposed to snort your meds, mdk.

Frizan said
You aren't supposed to snort your meds, mdk.

but when I do tho

I agree

Azarthes said
I agree

I disagree with this vehemently.

Foxxie said
I disagree with this .

I have no idea what I agreed to but I agree with you

Considering what mdk just typed was the best example of word-salad in the universe...

Probably just too much Doctor Who.

mdk said
infinite number

And strike.

Infinite isn't a number, it's a symbol, or in other terms - a constant. Therefore the premise of everything else you said falls short on the differing properties a mathematical symbol has against a mathematical quantity.

Let this fine lady expand on that.

Math is silly.

scribz said
And strike. Infinite isn't a number, it's a symbol, or in other terms - a constant. Therefore the premise of everything else you said falls short on the differing properties a mathematical symbol has against a mathematical quantity.Let this fine lady expand on that.

I love Vihart
<3

scribz said
And strike. Infinite isn't a number, it's a symbol, or in other terms - a constant. Therefore the premise of everything else you said falls short on the differing properties a mathematical symbol has against a mathematical quantity.Let this fine lady expand on that.

The symbol is secondary to the concept. The concept is that, in the actual world, in natural science, assigned values are, from the most basic to the most complex units, facile. Matter is simultaneously more and less than itself, and both more and less than what we would call an equivalent value. Digital sound is incremental, and fundamentally different from analogue -- is it so radical a concept that human comprehension of reality is fundamentally different from true reality?

also, she sounds like Radical Edward.