>>16900965
>Pythagoras was right
angled
xD

>>16900968
Shut the fuck up Hippasus. You're a heretic! You have modern mathematicians literally smoking crack here going
>Did you know you can have more of... NOTHING!? Look at my DOUBLE NOTHING BURGER! I call it.... """"""""""-1""""""""""""

Wasn’t Pythagoras deathly afraid of beans and farts?

>>16900986
Yes he thought beans contained the reincarnated souls of dead people. Eating them was basically murdering a human.

>>16900965
"Nothing" is bullshit. How could nothingness be a word? You violate the entire concept of somethingness. Nothing =/=Something.

>>16900965
>How could nothingness be a number?
By quantifying the additive identity.

>Let's say...
Let's say you are retarded since the Pythagorean Theorem, diagonal lines, and triangles wouldn't even be possible without the square root function and the square root function inevitably leads to irrational numbers and incommensurable lengths.

>How the FUCK do you irrational numbers make physical sense!?
How the FUCK have you never seen a diagonal line?

>>16900965
If modern mathematics is bullshit then why are our theories of physics broadly correct?

>>16901077
>theories of physics broadly correct
>99.5% of physical reality is heretofore unexplainable dark matter and energy according to the theories

>>16901078
How about all the things the theories DO correctly predict, though?

File: Starrett Catalog 24 1927_0079.jpg (148.6 KB)

148.6 KB JPG

>>16900986
A lot of things have been said about him, most of them false. Part of the problem is that he was against writing, in ancient Greece people were considered smart if they had a good memory so he taught orally and people were not allowed to write it down.

>>16901074
Yep, paradoxically irrational numbers are the easiest numbers to construct. Pi is a circle and the square root of 2 is the diagonal of a square.

Every carpenter has used those numbers without writing them down.

Oh and sharpening a tool means you are trying to get the radius of it's edge as close to zero as you can. A material object cannot have a dimension of zero of course but you can get close, which is what a sharp tool is.

>>16900965
the absolute state of brainlets

>>16901083
> Every carpenter has used those numbers without writing them down.
No they've used approximations. It's physically impossible to find irrational numbers in nature.

>diagonal lines, and triangles wouldn't even be possible without the square root function and the square root function inevitably leads to irrational numbers and incommensurable lengths.
Except "irrational numbers" aren't numbers. Pythagoras didn't consider them as such. Nobody denies the concept. They just denied they are numbers at all. I am a faithful disciple of Pythagoras and follow him on this.

File: magic plane.png (132.8 KB)

132.8 KB PNG

>>16901081

>>16901083
>in ancient Greece people were considered smart if they had a good memory so he taught orally and people were not allowed to write it down
Socrates thought writing made you more forgetful lol. It reminds me of the car panic when they first got invented. “It will ruin everything!”.

>>16901132
A lot of teachers still to this day won't let their students use calculators on tests due to similar reasoning.

>>16901005
>beans contained the reincarnated souls of dead people
Did he have a single fact to back that up?

>>16901150
Yes. Your mom
xD

>>16901132
This is actually true I think. I saw a study somewhere that showed oral cultures have better memories.

>>16901545
I can see it being true to some degree, so it’s more of a trade off situation.

>>16901083
It’s funnier to assume he was afraid of beans. So I’ll assume that.

>>16901617
Well the reason why people nowadays are so bad at remembering cell phone numbers is because we all have smart phones now. Same principles apply ig.

>>16901081
by what standards? if you push them, you will find they all fail

>>16901143
>>16901132
That's obviously true though. With calculators and writing you can even know this from your own experience, whether or not you decide to train your mind or rely on external tools. A lot of people are bad at arithmetic because they have a calculator in their pocket.

File: 24567186581.gif (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB GIF

>>16900965
Let me be perfectly fucking clear.

Despite Pythagoras being fucking autistic about numbers, it is fucking USEFUL to have numbers that aren't "real" and don't "make sense" (i.e., are "irrational"), because they make it possible to do calculations that in turn make it easier to describe and model physical processes, which in turn makes it possible for shit like super complex robotic factories to exist that mass produce huge black silicon dildos I can use to fuck myself in the ass with all day like the shameless disgusting faggot I am.

Pythagoras can suck my fucking dick and balls. and you can too bitch. Check fucking mate your stupid thread, I win. Don't even reply to me loser. Jesus christ I feel like, second-hand embarassed for you right now.

File: Grok01.jpg (199.9 KB)

199.9 KB JPG

>>16901005
How interesting.

>>16900965
A great place like this would be able to observe near zero or near infinite, never absolute.

>>16902293
Shut the fuck up faggot irrational "numbers" have no use whatsoever and literally any irrational "number" can be approximated as a rational number and work just fine in whatever calculation you need to do. Mathematics is supossed to be a tool in describing nature, faggot, and irrationals DONT FUCKING DO THAT. Give me sqrt(2) apples please. Come on do it. Where's your sqrt(2) apples? Yeah faggot, that's what I thought. Look, I don't deny irrationals as a concept, but I do NOT consider them numbers and therefore attempting to describe or use them isn't mathematics. They make no sense as numbers and trying to say they are numbers would be like trying to say infinity is a number. No. It is not. The great and holy Pythagoras was correct. The first mathematician and the greatest mathematician.

>>16900965
>0 is bullshit. How could nothingness be a number? You violate the entire concept of nothingness. Nothing =/=Something.
as a /g/entoomen 0 and null/nil are different concepts to me

>>16902294
He's causing a stink.

File: 1767276315227481.png (222.4 KB)

222.4 KB PNG

>>16902464
o/g/ niggas be vibe-coding all day
finna numbers hit hella diff cuh

>>16903013
>vibe-coding
i'm retarded, not delusional

File: 1578367827545.gif (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB GIF

>>16902414
Fuck you and your fucking apples and bullshit primitive math.

You want square roots? Take the square root of my fucking nut down your throat, bitch. I suppose since you're so fucking washed looking at irrational numbers you'd probably be so fucking tilted looking at "complex" numbers the entire goddamn planet's axis might shift under your feet if that happened. God please, just stay in your stupid fucking safe space and never look up complex numbers, wouldn't want your brittle fucking mind to completely rupture and have you start measuring fucking dorritos because they're triangles and thowing them at people who can't resolve the fucking paradox for you.

>>16903018
I accept your concession that modern mathematics is pseud quackery. Thank you for admitting that sqrt(2) apples is impossible because sqrt(2) has no real world applications whatsoever and is therefore NOT A FUCKING NUMBER. Modern mathematics is a bastardization of what Pythagoras was doing and has taken the simplicity, beauty, harmony, and utility out of mathematics and traded it for pseudo garbage so that elitists sitting comfy in their ivory towers can mentally goon all day long. Modern mathematics isn't concerned with discovering the secrets of nature, it's entirely disconnected from the original project and none of its concepts make actual sense. Fuck you and your square roots.

>>16901132
>>16901143
>>16901545
>>16902139
>>16902258
The issue isn’t recording information down (let’s not pretend that even those who pass on knowledge orally won’t need to fall back on writing if all else fails). The issue is not reading or absorbing the right information bases. Taking up space.

This is why the modern world sucks. We aren’t educating or familiarizing ourselves with information bases that matter. That are WORTH remembering, memorizing.

We also don’t beat into our heads enough all the things worth remembering. It’s too easy to forget basic things that matter. It’s not hard to understand, it’s easy to miss, or forget.

There’s too much information now. Some forms of media and entertainment do in fact make you a lot dumber.

>>16900965
What is annoying is that changing bases doesn't fix irrational numbers. Base 12 and base 60 have interesting features and allow some calculation shortcuts, but irrationals are still irrational.

Love me beans simple as

>>16900965
>>16903080
The greek math doesn't use a base system. It's represented geometrically, even the number theory of euclid and his treatment of irrationals

>>16901078
No causal mechanics for gravity knocks on your door

He started a cult.

>>16900965
Draw an heptagon with just a single compass and something straight but non-metric just to be able to connect the lines in the end.
Check mate pitagoras.

>>16905743
Cult had a way different meaning in the past, so that might be an informal fallacy.

>>16906322
It was 100% a cult.

File: 1632799693352.gif (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB GIF

>>16900965
Based

File: Babylon-math-2.gif (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB GIF

>>16903080
But are some approximations of irrationals more commensurate to base 60 to base 10?

Some say their sqrt 2 approximation on their tablet was simoly the limit of what they could compute by hand, this is fasle as seen on how large they mase their pythagorean triples table. No, whenscrutinizing this number we find they gabe their sqrt(2) repeating decimals, which looks alot less irrational than the thing

Reals miss the concepts of harmony and resonance, and dont appreciate how numbers fit *exactly* together . Precision at iteration is musically 12 TeT which sqrts to approx rationals, but in the process destroys the harmonic overtones

>>16906733
How do prime numbers work here?
There is the "science" belief that prime numbers and the stuff around them is universal so aliens would understand them exactly like we do.

File: perfect-28.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

>>16906959
my researches around primes here are mostly centered on expandong on the pythagorean method of tuning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_tuning

where we consider commensurate ratios to be perfectly proportioned muscial intervales 3:2 is the perfect 5 3/2 , not (2)^(7/12) .

i like the expansion of the 11 odd limit due to the mathematical coincidence it possess with the great pyramid. it plays on the prime numbers less than and equal to 11, utilizes base 28 and wraps around together rather harmonies to have 28 tonalies, one for each interval on their cubit .

when considering the utonalities and ontonalies to max meyer and harry partch on begins to see the beginnings of stability modes of a 3d cymatic through balancing of harmonic overtones through the pitch classes

I think in the end it tells the story of implosion, and its relationship to to the fine structure constant

>>16906983
Charge results from loop failure on the electron, so it's like an open geometric surface? So flux is not null create the imbalance.

File: Screenshot 2025-10-11 052951.png (502.4 KB)

502.4 KB PNG

>>16906995
indeed such a theory is expoused by https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Larry-Reed whilst i was looking for geometric intepretations of the fine structure constant. its insane how 137.5 sarcophophi fit inside the kings chamber

noting that 137 is a prime itself

>>16906996
Does 0 exist?

>>16907082
Zero is every superposition of a number and it's symmetric.

>>16907098
Does 0 exist?
>Yes
Then nothingness exists. Therefore nothing=something. Contradiction.
>No
Then it's not a number. Numbers (arithmoi) are entities that perfectly describe the physical world precisely because the world is the physical instantiation of number. What cannot be measured cannot be number, thus 0 is not number, irrationals are not numbers, negatives are not numbers, infinity is not number.
>So what is 0?
Your guess is as good as mine but what I can tell you is that it is not a number as much as infinity is not a number. At the very least it does not belong to the subject of arithmetic nor geometry. Modern mathematics is pseudo-garbage developed from set theoretic quackery. Sets are gay and retarded.

>>16901621
Given that the entire religious/philosophical movement named after him and following his teachings shunned beans to such a degree that even writers in antiquity went "wtf?" it's probably safe to assume that if he wasn't afraid of them he hated them all the same
That's not modern slander. That was accepted by people who revered him even back then

>>16907155
Nobody disputes that he was afraid of beans the dispute is why. Nobody is sure why he disliked beans so much and there are different reasons for it given by different writers in antiquity.

>>16901132
It all boils down to a simple - If you write my words, you might call me on it. Hence you won't write, and I'm free to change my mind while still remaining The Always Right teacher.

>>16900965
Nigger do you eat beans? Pythagoreanism is insane.

>>16900965
there is a big difference between
>pythagoras is correct i dont want to eat beans
vs
>pythagoras is correct squares cant' be odds

Insane bean hating old man

>>16907410
>"this nigga eatin' beans" was Pythagoras this whole time

>>16909976
Lel

>>16907082
I'd argue that even a nothing (0) is a something (1) in an absolute state of nothing. Nothing is a singular by such a point. Nothingness is the smallest point of existence. Existence is a perpetual one (1).

File: Target Tori Tiresome.webm (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB WEBM

>>16901122
So are the irrational numbers the locations on the bomber where the flak did not hit, or are the irrational numbers the dead crew from the crashed planes that did get impacted in those areas? Or are the irrational numbers the cigarette smoke from the flak gunners on the ground rising up and mixing with the fumes from the aircraft engines?

Eat beans
Expel souls
Simple as

>>16902294
why is his ass bare and blowing out red smoke

>>16909976
Math makes you crazy

>>16914663
typical philosofer behavior 2bh

>>16914658
There's no proof Pythagoras thought this.

>>16907154
Zero is not "nothingness" you retarded middle schooler, it's just "undefined". You will learn this in high school when you grow up.

>numbers are blah blah
You're a fucking schizo. "Number" is a formally defined concept in mathematics, and it is not the stupid shit you believe it is.

>sets are gay and retarded
double schizo, fucking kill yourself

File: 1770920881144815.jpg (164 KB)

164 KB JPG

Zero is not "nothingness", that is a stupid mainstream idea that has become popularized and only idiots think of zero as being "nothingness".

Zero is an object with very specific properties. It is a point at the center of the real number line, it is the additive identity, and it is the cardinality of the empty set.

If you want to talk about TRUE NOTHINGNESS, like, actual "emptiness" and you want to have your little ontological debate about whether it makes any sense or not, argue about empty sets, not the number zero. The number zero is a placeholder for ANOTHER concept which is the real culprit, not zero itself.

Blaming zero for your stupid philosophical ignorance is like blaming the guy at the checkout counter for the way the whole fucking company is run. It's not whether or not zero is a number, it's obviously a number. It's about what that number actually means. Does it actually mean "nothingness"? Personally, I don't think so. I think that's stupid and I think the very concept of "infinity" or "nothingness" is stupid. I don't believe in singularities.

>>16916635
>It is a point at the center of the real number line
Something with infinite extension has an arbitrary center.

>cardinality of the empty set.
Set theory is complete bullshit which, in turn, is why all of modern mathematics is bullshit. Even then you cannot say that {} is nothing. It's literally not lol. It is still something by set theories own literal definition of it. Your attempts at representing nothingness completely fucking fail. Because nothingness is not a number. I don't deny the empty set btw. I just don't consider it mathematical at all and I think its a complete failure in what it tries to "represent". Thus I do not accept 0 as a number.

>its the additive identity
Which is only useful for branches of "mathematics" that assume set theory. But I reject set theory. I reject it because it's conceptualization of number quite frankly leads to utter retardation. Don't get me wrong, the initial idea behind a set seems sorta intuitive at first, until you realize that it leads down a road which violates basic fucking principles about physical reality
>hurr durrr actual infinities huuurrrrrrr
Lmfao it's like your retarded quack modern math fags had to literally come up with an entirely new axiomatic system after Russell discovered a paradox that set theoretic retardation leads to and YOU STILL get other types of paradoxes from this system. What a fucking joke lmfao. You literally have to make the gayest assumptions with it too like the axiom of infinity. Holy LOL give me a fucking break. What psuedo retardation is this shit?

I firmly follow in the doctrine of Pythagoras. Numbers ("arithmoi") are supposed to exist in nature because nature is number. Numbers exist for two fucking purposes. Counting stuff, like sheep or apples, or measuring stuff, as in geometry. Numbers can be thought of, quite simply as, units.

Retvrn to primitive mathematics, btw. Modern math is cringe. Primitive mathematics is based and trad.

>>16916635
>Zero is not "nothingness", that is a stupid mainstream idea that has become popularized and only idiots think of zero as being "nothingness".
So if I have x, what is the difference between adding zero (x+0) and adding nothing (x) or is it the exact same function?

>It is a point at the center of the real number line
Points are physically nothing, they are virtual mapping locations, not tangible physical objects.

> it is the additive identity,
So is nothing, adding/subtracting nothing doesn't change anything.

>it is the cardinality of the empty set.
So is nothing, the empty set contains nothing, so it has the same exact length as nothing, just like a point has the exact same length as nothing.

>argue about empty sets
The same empty sets whose symbol is 0, but can also be written as {0}?

>The number zero is a placeholder for ANOTHER concept
Its not a placeholder, it is the mathematical jargon for something else, the concept of nothing, the same thing that the additive identity is logic jargon to describe.

>Does it actually mean "nothingness"? Personally, I don't think so.
Then what is the exact difference between adding 0 to x (x+0) and adding nothing to x (x)? If you can't point out any inequality because they are mathematically exactly equivalent, then there is 0 difference because nothing is different between the two statements x+0 and x.

>>16916877
>So if I have x, what is the difference between adding zero (x+0) and adding nothing (x) or is it the exact same function?
2nd case has no function involved, in fact you are just stating a variable

>>16916877
>the empty set contains nothing, so it has the same exact length as nothing
do you know about non-measurable sets?, hell, we don't need to go there, do you even know that the measure of the set of rational numbers is 0?

>>16916936
Wrong, x = x is a function, its called the identity function of x and x+0 is exactly equal to it for all x.

>>16916877
>The same empty sets whose symbol is 0, but can also be written as {0}?
utterly and unyieldingly wrong, {}=empty set=0, {{}}=set containing just the empty set={0}=1

>>16916938
f(x) = x if you want to be more precise.

>>16916938
ops >>16916877
also do you realize that any argument you might try to remove 0 that involves that "0 to x (x+0) and adding nothing to x (x)?" just can trivially be turned into it's equivalent for any other operation an it's identity element?, behold:
"Then what is the exact difference between multiplying 1 to x (x*1) and multiplying nothing to x (x)?"
do you even know what identity elements are?, do yo even realize that 0 & 1 ain't the only ones there are, since other operations also have an identity element?, take this trivial wikipedia-grade set of examples, you fool
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_element#Examples

>>16916940
>{}=empty set=0
Concession accepted, the empty set equals 0 unlike the claim in >>16916635.

>>16916938
don't try to pull a fast one on me by attempting to claim that a naked variable had the identity function applied to, but sure, i can modify the argument slightly:
2nd case only has 1 kind of function involved, the identity function, while the 1st case had 2 kind of functions involved, the identity on either element as many times as you'd desire, and a sum between the elements
any other flavour of faggotry you feel like pulling?

>>16916946
>"Then what is the exact difference between multiplying 1 to x (x*1) and multiplying nothing to x (x)?"
But we weren't talking about 1 being the same as nothing, we were talking about 0 and there is a difference between multiple x with 0 and not multiplying anything with zero, x by the multiplicative identity is already 1*x, which is why x is the same as itself by that measure.

>do you even know what identity elements are?, do yo even realize that 0 & 1 ain't the only ones there are
Since I brought up the identity function of x, of course I know 0 and 1 aren't the only things with an identity.

>>16916950
>Concession accepted
are you so needy that you accept "concessions" from people other that whom you where arguing with?, do you need me to explain the reason as to why {}=0?, it is trivial from the von neumann definition of the ordinals, although with a tweak with respect to the successor function we can clearly and plainly pose that {{}}=0, or {{},{{}}}=0, it certainly get fairly complex, but it IS doable

>>16916951
>a naked variable had the identity function
The variable is the identity function of the variable, x = f(x).

>2 kind of functions involved
No, it was a complex function, but still just 1 function that maps just 1 value of each possible x for all possible values of x.

>>16916955
>do you need me to explain the reason as to why {}=0?
No, I was the one who pointed out that {}=0, so you need to explain it to >>16916635 who falsely claimed that {} != 0.

>>16916957
>it was a complex function
and why might that be ;) ?... i told you you wouldn't get pull a fast one on me my guy, no matter where you try to move the 2 functions, they are there!
>>16916960
>falsely claimed that {} != 0.
but he's sort of right, which turns out to be the kind of right that tends to incite debate, in a sense from the point of view of indentities, there different flavours of nothing, for example the 0 of sum or the empty string of concatenation, which of the two would you say is the more of a "nothing"?, oh, and the 1 of multiplication, that's another "nothing" even if to you it feels more tangible
by the by and just to clarify, you do comprehend that the empty set is a distinct object from nothing, in much the same way that an empty box is not itself nothing, right?

>>16916973
>and why might that be ;) ?
Because that is the term for single function with multiple computational steps that still just produce one output for every input.

>but he's sort of right
So now you need to review set theory and explain to yourself why {}=0?

>the empty set is a distinct object from nothing
Yes the empty set is the thing that contains nothing because a set is a mathematical container, not the mathematical objects themselves.

>>16900965
stupid thread. go read rudin.

>>16900965
aren't irrational numbers just illusions created from picking an arbitrary base? in reality they are just like any other number, but representing them introduces these kinds of representational artifacts.

Ugh

>>16918974
>look inside
>shit thread bump
yeah

>>16917469
the same is true for numbers bigger than 10

>>16902293
You can do all that with floats.

>>16917469
>aren't irrational numbers just illusions created from picking an arbitrary base?
No, no matter what base you pick, if you have two perpendicular lines, the unit distance from the intersection of the lines to the arbitrary metric base unit on each line will be incongruent with diagonal from each unit length on each line, so square root 2 will always be irrational, no matter how long you define 1 to be whether in feet, meters, or any other base unit.

>>16918991
Ugh

>>16900965
I have a circle with a diameter of 1. What's the perimeter of the circle?

>>16920386
22/7

>>16900965
>0 doesnt make sense
It does when applied as it is. Multiply something by nothing, it is nothing as nothing doesnt magically become something, the thing happened no times. Subtract/add nothing from something and it doesnt change, because nothing happened. Try and divide by nothing and there is no means of making sense of what that could mean

>>16901005
And that is why to this day people are called human beans.

File: 0over0.jpg (67.5 KB)

67.5 KB JPG

>>16920871
>nothing doesnt magically become something
anon...

>>16900965
Would an example of an irrational number be the hypoteneuse of most triangles? Kinda ironic

>>16920965
Whats your point? Zero zero times would obviously not be zero.

>>16921109
read your post slowly.

>>16921113
>no refutation
haha fuck off brainlet

>>16921114
>obviously not be zero.
okay retard.

>>16921114
>nothing doesn't magically become something
>Zero zero times would obviously not be zero.
In this context you're saying nothing nothing times would obviously be something.
fucking idiot raising my cortisol.

>>16920871
>nothing doesnt magically become something
Right, nothing already was something, the fact that nothing had already been named something all along before you were even born and you keep calling it by name to refer to something specific with the specific properties of nothingness that allow you to have a discussion about nothing should have tipped you off immediately if you actually had the capacity for critical thought.

>>16921160
>properties of nothingness
you mean non-existent, tell me what's in between the parentheses -> (), is it something? you fucking idiot. if you're too retarded to grasp the concept of a void I don't think you should be talking about critical thought. just fuck off with your braindead semantic game.

>>16921169
>is it something?
Of course, if there wasn't a void between the two symbols, it would be an oval, not an open and closed bracket that indicate parenthesis, retard, that extra little something is entirely necessary to distinguish one symbol from another.

>>16921173
so you're that special kind of retarded. parentheses -> (), nothing ->
was something next to the arrow? do you want a different symbol to point out? if you still don't get it you're a lost cause, might as well end it here and experience nothingness.

>>16921177
>so you're that special kind of retarded.
>t the retard who always separates different symbols with little voids and has an entire "space" character he keeps using to make bigger voids to separate words and even bigger voids to separate sentences, and even bigger voids to separate paragraphs, only to claim he isn't using something to make those distinctions at all.

>was something next to the arrow?
Yes.
>do you want a different symbol to point out?
You mean a bigger void?

> if you still don't get it you're a lost cause
Sure, sure, now try explaining that without relying on all the different voids to separate characters and sentences and paragraphs as you keep doing like a hypocritical retard.

>>16921181
>You mean a bigger void?
so you concede that there's nothing next to it. buddy I don't think this logic thing is for you.

>>16921181
a bigger nothing, kek.

>>16921186
>so you concede that there's nothing next to it.
Yes the thing you use to separate your letters and words and numbers are various depiction of nothing.

>>16921188
Yup, two character spaces full of nothing is bigger than one character space full of nothing, while being smaller than an entire line of nothing.

You can obviously see it with your own eyes because you were obviously trained to make use of them to communicate more clearly in writing and if you refuse to admit as much and want to see an even more extreme amount of nothing with you own two eyes, you simply have to pluck them out.

>>16921190
cut your losses bud, it's getting pathetic at this point.

>>16921191
I accept your concession, it is pathetic to argue with a retard who keeps using some thing to claim it doesn't exist while trying to assign a bunch of properties to it so he can keep talking about it, so I will try to quit arguing with those types of retard to create pathetic nonsensical self-refuting discussions about how the thing he keeps talking about isn't a thing.

>>16921193
yikes

>>16921194
Yes, making retarded looney tunes noises is much more suitable for you than trying to make a logical argument, next time try some yoinks or meepmeeps to keep things fresh.

>>16921195
can you hear yourself? kek

>>16921196
The only thing I hear is nothing since those are words, not noises.

>>16900965
no math physically exists
you think the universe pulls out a calculator every time you throw a ball?

>>16921235
The universe is the calculator that physically computes how far the ball goes based on the amount of force you apply.

>within this mathematical notation I have captured the desired length with infinite precision!
>*proceeds to measure by comparing the rope to his feet*

>>16921239
>captured
We have a math notation expert over here.

When you say zero, you get zapped by Hawking radiation for lying.

File: pb5tkhdg4eja1.jpg (135.1 KB)

135.1 KB JPG

>>16901132
> It reminds me of the car panic when they first got invented. “It will ruin everything!”.
Yeah they totally didn't ruin anything, haha.

>>16921160
>nothing is actually...le something!
Rivetting stuff from the science board

Pythagoras was correct to not teach masses about more advanced numerology. More mathematical knowledge makes it harder for the world to return to true balance.

Negative numbers do exist. Life giveth, Death giveth. + is life, - is death. One is, One anti-is.

Binary is 0, 1.
Anti-Binary must then be 0, -1

Quantum is 0 to 1
Anti-Quantum is 0 to -1

Existence beyond this reality lies within 0 as an universe at 0 could not exist, which would bring in a new existence beyond this one.

Since anti exists within our reality we must then assume binary and quantum to not only be 0, 1 and 0 to 1, but -1, 0 1 and -1 to 1.

-1 + 1 = 0

Where 0 not to exist nothing could sprout or wither as existence wouldn't be able to balance itself, existence would cease to hold itself together.

Pythagoras knew this, but chose to keep this knowledge hidden within his cult.

>>16901101
stfu flyover

>>16902293
the computers you rely on to make your fag toys actually don't use a single irrational number. Ditching the "reals" is essential for applying math to reality.

>>16907154
This is clever agitprop but a number is going to be all number accessible given an operation set. This is how we know incredibly large numbers we have never thought about before are numbers.
It also explains why somethings like irrationals aren't numbers at all and it has nothing to do with exponentiation and square roots. The source is multiplication and division are not proper operations mapping any number to all other numbers.
3 and 5 have a relation that is not a number. The ancient mistake was assuming some kind of composable interface 3(5) = 5(3) and some mysterious 3/5 or 5/3 as an actual number. When the actual number being referenced is 3/3, 5 or 5/5, 3 or 1,x. An operation must only accept numbers and must strictly output numbers. Ad hoc ex post facto explanumptions are not math and they are not science.

>>16922673
>An operation must only accept numbers and must strictly output numbers
nobody tell this nigga about cartesian products, he'll have a conniption

>>16922684
Well this is exactly where this thinking goes. To create numbers that are true, as in the case of (n, +, -) one actually has to admit a whole bunch of shit and still the basis aren't actually covered without ad hoc incorporation of non-numbers - for example, they are both even and odd or they are neither even or odd.

>>16901083
Machinist chads rise up

>>16922551
nothing is below 0, even the -1 in your example is simply displacement, you're a conscious matter made of stardust that returns to dust in death. the anti of existing(1) is simply not existing(0).

>>16922720
Negative numbers are required to close the field of (n, +) sorry retard.

>>16922724
did your rabbi told you that?

>>16920397
incorrect

>>16922724
showing signs of unprovoked aggression from simply having your opinion (obviously wrong) refuted tells me how ignorant you are.

>>16922729
What is the operation in {n, +} to get from 3 to 2?

>>16922724
you should feel sorry for yourself indeed, you're the most oblivious retard in the thread thus far.

>>16922742
I guess you are another retard. What is the operation in {n, +} to get from 3 to 2?

>>16922743
you taking away (displacing) 1 from 1+1+1 is not a proof of negative numbers, are you seriously this dumb?

>>16922746
You are too stupid to understand the question. My guess is you want to argue for {n, +, -} which is fine substitute, but not the thing in question.
{n, +} satisfies numbers as extensible given negative numbers. This is the claim. Do you have an argument that this is not the case? One way to do this is a counter example. Among the counter examples would be any x<n which n+m = x. x = 2, n = 3 is just a possible instance provided you can name m. Protip you can't.

>>16922753
holy idiot, the argument is negative numbers do not exist as 0 is the lowest number. you don't need negative numbers to do subtraction(-). you can displace 1 from 3 but there is nothing to displace in 0, I even gave you the simple arithmetic and you still didn't get it. now you look more (+) like a fucking idiot than you were before you posted this. sorry retard.

>>16922758
No, you are invoking a new operation. This could be the inverse of the successor operation, hence {n, +, -} but the existence of some other set does not invalidate the {n, +} set.