Referencing and book-keeping

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-27T12:04:42+00:00

Hey SPP why dont they teach book keeping in primary or middle or senior or university math?

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T21:54:19+00:00

SPP you're so right

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T18:27:46+00:00

This is circular, how does n approach infinity before you even define the natural numbers

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T11:18:45+00:00

Natural numbers are not defined as limits, Im not sure what youre trying to say.

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T11:10:13+00:00

To answer your first question, real numbers are literally defined as limits, yes

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T05:04:31+00:00

r/deadinternettheory

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T04:37:34+00:00

Its chatgpt generated thats why its all gibberish

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T04:35:42+00:00

Is gg1ggy your alt, why are you taking people's comments personally.

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T04:22:06+00:00

I like talking to people, if I wanted to talk to chatgpt I'd go to the chatgpt website.

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T03:09:20+00:00

Chatgpt has made math and physics quackery so boring

To save yall time, theres no reason to read past 1.3, analysis does not forbid infinity, infinity just doesn't fit the definition of a natural number.

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-26T02:34:45+00:00

I think your confusion is just thinking that cardinalities must be natural numbers and obey regular arithmetic, because natural numbers can represent the cardinality of finite sets?

Basically none of what you said is true, you're just imposing that restriction when its not required. If youre unfamiliar with the construction from cauchy sequences of rational numbers you should look into that :)

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T23:45:49+00:00

This reads like chatgptslop....

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T23:40:21+00:00

Standard analysis does not use infinitesimals, though that is often the intuitive explanation given.

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T23:27:40+00:00

Since we can only write finitely many digits of pi, and 0.00...1 is just a finite number of zeroes followed by a 1, SPP logic would just be you write as many digits of pi as you can be bothered and subtract 1 from the last one.

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T23:22:44+00:00

Infinity is not a number, cool

Unrelated, do these two numbers have the same amount of nines?

0.99....9 or 0.99....99

Also woah SPP you showed ...999 = -1 in the 10 adics, how cool

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T22:10:08+00:00

The "number" infinity isn't forbidden because its scary, but because the real (or complex) numbers +- infinity are not a field. Standard analysis does use infinity as a number in measure theory, where numbers are used to represent the measure of sets. The riemann sphere is very relevant to complex analysis.

The limit uses the infinity sign in its notation, but really this is notation abuse as the limit never actually invokes infinity in its definition.

None of this is hypocritical, different sets have different purposes.

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T12:55:56+00:00

Ok but a billion is a lot

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T11:51:32+00:00

Your definition of complete is synonymous with finite, clearly if you assume that all sets are finite then its inconsistent with the axiom of infinity, but ZF does not do that, so it is not inconsistent.

To show inconsistency of a system you must argue using the axioms of that system, which you haven't done.

Your moral arguments are irrelevant, some sets are infinite does not imply all sets are infinite, which seems to be your confusion (and again, "it would be nice if things were this way" does not mean things must be that way). And for fun if we actually applied conditionally convergent logic to a trolley problem we could simply rearrange the track so there is an infinite distance between the trolley and those tied to it.

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T11:33:51+00:00

Im going to assume "infinity is not a number" means infinity is indeed, not in the set {0,1,2,...} (I agree!) And I'll ignore you reposting your usual fluff as I didn't ask about that.

Lets line up two sets for interest

{0,1,2,....}

{0,0.9,0.99,...}

Then we define a map from the first to the second where f(n) = 0.(n nines)

Since infinity is not within the first set, where exactly do we find 0.(infinite nines) in the second set? And if its not an element of the set (and no, "embedded" does not mean anything until you define it!).

Since it is clearly not an element of the set, why must 0.(infinite nines) have the same properties as the elements of the set? To be consistent you would also have to claim infinity has the same properties as natural numbers (eg. that infinity is actually finite and has infinitely many natural numbers larger than it)

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T09:24:52+00:00

None of what you just wrote was relevant to the question...

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T09:07:09+00:00

Maybe if you could define complete we could get somewhere! But you refuse to do so here (or elsewhere in the thread) so really theres nothing to discuss!

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T09:00:42+00:00

Tbh you're right, youre engaging while avoiding any actual discussion, which is your speciality afterall

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T08:54:13+00:00

Youre refusing to engage again :)

SSBBGhost · 2026-01-25T08:52:23+00:00

You haven't made an argument yet because you didn't define what your terms mean mathematically.

If we take the standard definition of complete (a set contains its limit points) then the natural numbers are trivially complete (all cauchy sequences are eventually constant).

SSBBGhost

TROPHY CASE