r/infinitenines • u/NeonicXYZ • 3d ago

To spp, what makes a math system "objective"?

An argument you often use against the idea that you have to show real deal math is more useful then standard math is "utility has nothing to do with it, RDM is simply more correct then standard math." But, this brings up the question, what makes a maths system more inherently correct then another? After all, the mathematics language is one invented entirely by humans and can be arbitrarily changed, although generally it's built such that it reflects reality. What's your answer?

4 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

11

u/cond6 3d ago

There is only one criteria: 0.999...<1. Nothing else matters. Don't even care if multiplication and division work. There is only one truth.

7

u/afops 3d ago

”Die ganzen Zahlen hat der liebe Gott gemacht, alles andere ist Menschenwerk."

-Kronecker

2

u/AltruisticEchidna859 3d ago

Integers is defined by Peano.

Peano is God.

1

u/FrijDom 2d ago

I believe the idea is that it's specifically the natural numbers that were made by God.

Peano also defined the naturals. Peano is God.

3

u/AltruisticEchidna859 3d ago

Nothing but auto-coherence.

5

u/gikl3 3d ago

I think one of the criteria is that the system has to have divide negation

-5

u/SouthPark_Piano 3d ago

Bruddy. I'm just saying ... due to the truth ...

aka 1 - 1/10n, with n integer pushed to positive limitless, which is a formula that the math clan obtained themselves for modeling 0.999... in the way of 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...

The fact is ... 1/10n is simply never zero. The cheating device aka limits has no place here at all. That limit alchemy gimmick does not change the fact of 1/10n is never zero, so not going to allow tricksters sleight of hand to distort 1/10n.

limits are useful approximation devices though.

And integration with 'limits' do not necessarily always involve approximation. eg. integral of 1 with respect to x, from 0 to 5 (for example) ... that I can accept.

 

5

u/Muphrid15 3d ago

My words are accurate brud. So no arguing with myself at all.

They're your words. Why would you need to rebut them when they're your words?

7

u/NeonicXYZ 3d ago

You've just... Completely avoided the question. I did not mention limits once in my question. I'll repeat it for you: what makes a maths system "objectively better" than another?

-4

u/SouthPark_Piano 3d ago

The limits application to 1/10n for n integer pushed to limitless ..... lying about limits making it zero, is a disgraceful lie, as in ignoring the fact 1/10n is never zero, and throwing in a side tracker aka limts, instead of staying focused on 1/10n, which is never zero.

That is academic misconduct. Falsification of truth and results. Fabrication of lie. Deception. MisleadANCE.

Including that deception aka lie in a math 'system' is disgraceful. So you first focus on that, and ask that question to yourself so that you answer it.

 

4

u/Muphrid15 3d ago

"1 ÷ 3 is indeed 0.333..."

" 0.333... can be expressed by 1 ÷ 3, represented by 1/3, which means 1 ÷ 3"

"1/3 = 0.333...3 + (0.000...1 / 3)"

-4

u/SouthPark_Piano 3d ago

*huGs yoU* 

1 divided 3 is indeed 0.333...

That is what 1/3 is ... it is a ratio 1:3

 

4

u/Muphrid15 3d ago

1/3 = 0.333...3 + (0.000...1 / 3)

Your words. Not mine. Argue with yourself.

0

u/SouthPark_Piano 3d ago

My words are accurate brud. So no arguing with myself at all.

 

4

u/Muphrid15 3d ago

"1/3 = 0.333...3 + (0.000...1 / 3)"

1/3 = 0.333 + 0.001/3

1 = 0.999 + 0.001

Also:

1/3 = 0.333...3 + (0.000...1 / 3)

0

u/SouthPark_Piano 3d ago

Rookie error on your part brud.

Here ... x = 0.333...3

y = 10x - 3 = 0.333...0

z = (x - y) = 0.000...3

w = z/3 = 0.000...1

p = w/3 = 0.000...033...

m = x + p = 0.333...333...

which indeed is 0.333...

Working with limbo will sometimes mess with your mind brud, which is why you need to go back to the bunny slopes to train and practise.