have YOU verified the foundations of arithmetic?

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 5

have YOU verified the foundations of arithmetic?

>>

>>8207499

I just finished with integers, will do rational numbers tonight.

>>

Tell me when you find the flaw made 2300 years ago, and how it means modern arithmetic is completely worthless

>>

>inb4 it just werks

>>

>>8207499

I always thought that coloured pens were a meme, until I was given a set.

Never going back to black/blue.

>>

>>8207503

Do tell.

>>

>people do number theory and arithmetic for thousands of years

>only in 19th century someone comes up with axioms

>no one cares about them except logicians

these have no relevance to actual mathematics

>>

>>8207516

I don't want to reveal my working out

>>

>AKA

>>

>>

>>8207518

>what is Euclid's Elements

>>

>>8207499

Yes, and I found them lacking.

>>8207503

The issue I have with them was introduced in the late 1800's/early 1900's. When logic was being formalized. Personally I'm surprised it wasn't caught considering many related results at the time.

>>8207518

Foundations are related to proof and theorem. You are correct that mathematics has been around longer than we've had axiomatization but that doesn't mean that modern mathematics is practiced without proof or theorem.

>>8207572

Shit, by modern standards.

>>

Fucking wew that identity property, i sincerely doubted it would work.

the denominator of the zero is distributed to both sides

>>

>>8207499

Yeah. From Peano.

Got bored part way through some order axioms

>>

>>8207687

Im curious as to your thoughts after that determination (that math is gay)

Fyi im following wildberger which ive surmised is fringe. He has a lot to say about established set theory etc

>>

>>8207499

have YOU seen http://us.metamath.org/index.html ?

>>

>>8207722

Extreme gratitude to you anon!

>>

>>8207701

I hope you're actually using induction in your proofs. Many of the proofs for natural and rational arithmetic requires multiple nested inductions and they can be fairly nontrivial.

I used a combination of axiomatic set theory books and Landau's foundations of analysis. The problem I encountered affects every approach to the reals within set theory.

I don't think math is gay. I just think it's important to realize the limitations of formal languages when dealing with uncountable sets.

>>

>>8207731

Mild appreciation of expression of extreme gratitude towards self.

>>

i would but i'm sick of studying this shit. gonna get my easy ms and a comfy job.

>>

>>8207734

i think im using induction (i have a nonsci undergrad and im just seriously getting into mathematics). I believe the only assumtion ive made is that natural numbers are countable/orderable entities, and now ive gotten to a rational number field.

>uncountable sets

im a few vids away from wildbergers assertion that the infinity set doesnt exist, which im anticipating with much excitation. Its math foundations ~16 or so on his youtube channel, njwildberger, if youd like to see what im seeing/following along with. He prefaced the series with the idea that he has a better approach, vids are now near #200 many of them 30+ minutes. I hope to catch up by 2017

>>

>>8207499

I remember doing that in first semester of university after introducing peano axioms

most of the stuff you are doing in your picture seems pretty redundant though

>>

>>8207499

It's self-evident.

>>

>>8207499

I verified them experimentally in about 3rd grade.

>>

>>8207499

what is \ ????

>>

>>8209013

I was using \ for 'less'. That first pic is for integers where an integer is two natural numbers a\b. Its wildberger's approach to negative numbers.

He defines rationals as a set of integers a/b. Zero as a rational number ends up being (1\1)/z where z is a non zero integer.

>>8208779

While many aspects are self evident, there are some very interesting things i have gleaned from this exercise. The most interesting has been the pattern/relationship between the basic operations

>>

>>8207765

utterly wasting your time

>>

>>8207499

>have YOU verified the foundations of arithmetic?

Don't need to. It's part of the standard library: https://github.com/coq/coq/tree/trunk/theories/Arith

>>

>>8209105

>not writing your own libs

>>8209082

Im learning a lot breh. Later ill CAD a deeper visualization of ford circles to see the more complex/long manifesting patterns, just for laughs.

Also i hope you like multicoloured notes and norman wildberger, because i plan to post this shit as i study it. For discourse, though.

>>

>>8207518

>these have no relevance to actual mathematics

For most practical applications I'd agree with you. But for analysis and the justification of otherwise infinitesimal calculus and such it's nice to make sure that what you're relying on works out.

>>

>>8207499

>verified the foundations of arithmetic

we have proven already that this is impossible. see goedels incompleteness theorem

>>

>>8209117

Whats the total area inside all of those ford circles then? You can probably give the answer, but most definitely not verify it since u seem to be wasting your times verifying the axioms of arithmetic. Be a real nigga and fuck with modular forms n shit instead of doing this pointless shit

Thread images: 5

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at imagescucc@gmail.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.