Well /sci/?
>>8156706
Real number fags
BTFO
T
F
O
easter bunnies are uncountable. yep, still holds.
>>8156706
>What happens if I replace "Easter Bunnies" with "Easter Bunnies" in your statement? Do you still hold to it?
>>8156706
Easter Bunnies are a totally ordered, complete, archimedean field.
>>8156793
prove it INTUITIVELY
>>8156776
nice
>>8156706
A tomato, by any other name, would still taste like shit.
Plenty of math terms are shitty, it doesn't make them less valid, so why would I have less faith in reals if they were named after a children's fantasy?
>>8156706
Dear God. I just thought he was a meme, and here he is proving it. Yeah, the term "Real Numbers" is pretty shitty, but it has a clear definition that in no way in involves
Easter bunnies. The argument he's making is literally one a child would make, an idiotic one at that.
>>8157299
>The argument he's making is literally one a child would make, an idiotic one at that.
How do you know what his argument is if you don't know what he's responding to?
>>8157299
you're completely missing the point.
He refuses the axioms that lead to the construction of real numbers. And in that post, he makes fun of them by comparing them to something that doesn't exist like easter bunnies and infinite sets.
Absolute madman.
>>8157299
No, it's a pretty good term.
Shitty is an overstatement and you know it.
>>8157303
There isn't enough time to respond to every idiotic statement made by every quack in every field. At some point you don't need to hear any more.
