https://sites.google.com/site/thehappiestpoints/
I want to make the above into a mathematical proof.
Where do I get started?
>>8086435
Take your meds.
>>8086454
I am taking them. ;)
Now take my dick up your butt and answer my question please.
>>8086462
Your schizophrenic ramblings cannot be made into a proof.
>>8086467
I'll be the judge of that, tyvm.
Now then, where do I get started?
>>8086477
You get started by realizing your own insanity and attempting to alleviate it instead of pretending your gibberish is somehow profound.
>>8086435
>scientology v1.1
Go die.
>>8086489
Time is made up of indivisible parts of time.
There couldn't have been an infinite amount of time before the present.
There was nothing before the beginning of time.
How is this at all insane?
How is this at all not the most profound knowledge?
I'm about to delete this thread, before I do, /please/ just tell me where I can begin to learn to put natural language proofs into mathematical symbols, and anything else I need to know for creating mathematical proofs.
>>8086492
>Time is made up of indivisible parts of time.
This is meaningless.
>There couldn't have been an infinite amount of time before the present.
Why?
>How is this at all insane?
You mean apart from that it has nothing to do with the insane gibberish in your first post? Also, don't post every sentences as it's own paragraph. It immediately tells everyone you are a crazy person. For some reason a startling amount of insane people write with that style. Why they do this is a much more interesting question than yours.
>>8086435
cant tell if epic troll or delusional 10/10
>>8086492
It's called symbolic logic.
Also, your "proof" is idiotic:
>1-2-3-1) An infinitely small part of time can never be reached because no matter how small the number is, there is always a smaller number.
An infinitely small part of time by definition cannot have a smaller number than it. You are applying the logic of the finite to the infinitesimal incorrectly. The infinitely small number is 0. Unless you are using some non-standard numbers system like the hyper-reals. But that won't help you prove time is made of indivisible parts because the hyper-reals are infinitely divisible. You are not going to be able to conclude anything about empirical reality with this intellectual masturbation. You're just begging the question by choosing arbitrary assumptions that lead to the conclusion you want (and you couldn't even do that correctly).
>3-2) If an infinite amount of sequential events had to have finished happening before the present could happen then the present would've never happened because an infinite amount of sequential events can never finish happening.
Again you apply the logic of finite sequences incorrectly. An infinite amount of sequential events from what point? The amount of time between any point in the past and the present is finite, even if the past stretches back infinitely. It is not strictly true that an infinite amount of events have finished since the beginning of time because there is no beginning of time in the first place! Get it?
So your argument fails at the start.
>>8086534
Yes I'm an idiot.
Not being sarcastic, I am, in a sense, compared to you in some metric like accuracy for statements.
Which is why I'm doing my proof in math, to make up for that.
But if I'm an idiot, so are you, you lack verbal iQ, the most important intellect ness'ry for guaranteed happiness in this life. Tell me, if I were to torture you with fire right now, what belief would make you be able to endure that pain?
Or, easier than that. If I were to headbutt you, and even give you a helmet, who would give up first?
Careful, nevermind, let's just discuss my OP.
How do I learn how to create mathematical proofs?
Am I really supposed to trust some .edu website? I barely trust .gov s. I'm looking for an .org but I don't know where on http://www.maa.org/ it tells you how to write mathematical proofs.
The reason I don't trust .edu s is because I think that they have a greater risk of making a mistake ( to which they've already admitted, berkeley even, and to think that's supposed to be one of the top schools correct? ), .gov s are funded by taxes but .org s are fueled by passion while .edu s merely by curiosity.
>>8086553
You're doing the "every sentence is its own paragraph" thing again buddy. Try grouping your sentences together and then I might reply to your nonsense.
>>8086553
I guess what I'm asking is what are all the sites basing their knowledge of how to write mathematical proofs off of? Like is there some original source I can see that will have all the rules there?
I mean if all the tertiary-tier educational facilities and governments and organizations have the same rules for mathematical proofs then where was it formalized or first recorded?
The bar just keeps getting lower
>>8086592
>thinks he is smart
>cant even use google
>asking 4chan for help
>hasn't deleted thread yet
OP post your race so we can have another data point for low iq to use in the next race vs iq thread.
please?
>>8086592
????????????
your inane ramblings can't be made into a mathematical proof, because if you tried, it'd be evident it's absolute bullshit
I told you to fuck off like twice before and went through your points explaining to you why they don't work, stop bringing this shit up again and again.
>>8086676
>doesn't know what a proof is, asks people how to write his ramblings as a proof
>still has the nerve to answer criticism by repeating the inane ramblings smugly
you're a fucking idiot
>>8086679
How do you know I don't know what a proof is or that I asked someone to write a proof for me?
How are my 'ramblings' 'inane'? Also, how am I repeating them?
Please don't respond, I want to get you banned once the mods read your post then this post and see that you don't have a good response.
Actually go ahead and try your best to respond if you want, I'm sure you don't have a leg to stand on.
>>8086676
>Starting from a non-zero positive integer, one can not get to an infinitely small number by division.
How is it at all relevant whether one can reach 0 in a finite number of divisions?
>What am I saying that is arbitrary or an assumption, and how could I not even choose arbitrary assumptions correctly?
You are attempting to describe time as made up of "indivisible parts" by making an analogy to finite divisions of numbers. This does not tell us anything about reality, it tells us that you've chosen some assumptions about what time is and then extrapolated from them. But your extrapolations don't even logically follow. Not to mention that whether time is made up of "indivisible parts" isn't even relevant to the rest of your argument. Let's say time is discrete. It can still have no beginning, i.e. there are infinite time steps going back from the present.
>An infinite amount of sequential events from what point? FROM THE POINT I SAID IN THE FUCKING PDF
You didn't say what the point is. You just said "an infinite amount of sequential events can never finish happening". A sequence has to begin from some point in order to say that it finishes or doesn't finish. If time has no beginning we can construct a sequence going backwards from the present infinitely, and we can construct a sequence going forwards from the present infinitely, but we cannot talk about a sequence "starting" from a beginning which does not exist. So your argument that the present would never have been reached because it requires infinite time is false. The time between any points in the past and the present or any points in the future and the present is still finite.
>>8086499
Hey!
Don't be rude.
Or I will kick your arse.
>>8086435
Write all your definitions in terms of sets.
Properly define your axioms
Prove theorems
> bad box detected
OP, if you want to talk about the modelling of time you should be at least familiar with the current theoretical treatments, which (as far as I know) is uses time scales on dynamical systems. (The theoretical physicists may have done some things in the interim, but that's not my bailiwick so I won't comment on that.)
Since time scales unify the treatment of continuous and discrete time, they let you work with differential equations, difference equations and mixed (differential-difference) equations in the same framework, so this may be of interest to the rest of /sci/ as well.
Since this is a fairly new subject, I've learned it from reading papers directly, but if you want a nice introductory reference you can try the pair of books by Bohner and Peterson. Both should be available on Library Genesis.
http://campus.mst.edu/adsa/contents/v6n2p1.pdf
