If math reflects reality how come Graham's number is so large it can't even exist in our universe?
>>7961114
math doesnt have to reflect reality. Math is all about taking logic and making concrete rules for it.
>>7961114
>If math reflects reality
Moron
>>7961114
Take a penny.
Declare to yourself that if you had this penny, graham's number's of times then you'd have graham's number's of pennies.
Now Graham's Number exists in the real world and your penny represents 1/Graham's number
>>7961132
>and your penny represents 1/Graham's number
Yeah no thanks asshole, I might as well start wiping my arse with my money.
>>7961114
dumb bearposter
>>7961114
Graham ain't got shit on busy beavers.
>>7961198
Dumb ape poster
all of reality can be represented as math, but not all math can be represented as reality
>>7961206
/sci/duck will always be the best /sci/ meme you two brainlets
>>7961208
>We have already proved it
>>7961132
You don't seem to understand a Graham Number of pennies can't exist in our universe
Why can a Graham's number of pennies not exist? Are you attempting a pigeon hole kind of argument, so that for a graham's number of pennies to exist there has to be an embedding of that number of pennies into our universe, which is impossible since graham's number exceeds the number of atoms in the universe? I can think of two objections if that's how you're reasoning, and the one I'll mention is that there is presently a lot of speculation the cosmos is quite a lot more tha. The visible universe. If that turns out to be true, the embedding argument just becomes, "a graham's number of pennies in the visible universe," which doesn't violate the correspondence between cardinalities and physical reality.
>>7961114
Is Grahams number larger than the multiplicity of the universe?
>Graham's number can't exist in our observable universe
i added observable because we don't know the conditions of our global universe
but having fewer particles in the obs universe doesn't suggest that graham's number can't exist, since once you start talking about numbers of possible unique physical states of the universe, possible arrangements of those atoms, you're already observing values larger than the numbers of atoms, and that's a thing that exists and is embedded in our universe
and that's just the tip of the iceberg
>This whole discussion about Graham's number not existing in our observable universe
[math]\color{green}{> Implying \; numbers \; are \; equinumerous \; collections \; of \; physical \; objects} [/math]
