Wait... is that an IRRATIONAL NUMBER I see on my screen? Holy fucking cultist! *PUNCHES COMPUTER* God I fucking hate IRRATIONAL NUMBERS! Fuck IRRATIONAL NUMBERS, fuck infinity and heil Wildberger!

>>16696480 (OP)
yeah i agree OP

/thread

What's the argument for why e.g. the diagonal of a square isn't a useful or valid concept?

>>16696480 (OP)
I have good news.
We have suffered under the tyranny of those GOD CURSED INFINITY LOVING SODOMITES.
But now we have good news.
For SAINT WILD BURGER has been sent by GOD to right the wrongs of the mathematical world.
Now we of THE ONE TRUE FINITE FAITH can rejoice!
Yes, Brothers and Sisters!
Soon we shall PURGE this EARTH of MATHEMATICAL HERESY.
We shall burn the text books and cleanse with HOLY FIRE all mention of infinity.

Let us gather the firewood.
Amen.

/sci/sters, what do we think of his hypercatalan paper?

>>16696480 (OP)
Can you show me an irrational number? I mean an actual irrational number and not just a 'representation' of it.

>>16696700
cool it with the anti realism

>>16696700
Diagonal of a unit square.

>>16696873
Squares are made up of atoms, so pythagoras theorem is not true (it's just an approximation)

>>16696881
>Squares are made up of atoms
no, but your meds you forgot to take certainly are

>>16696887
Oh? Can you show me a square which is not made up of atoms?

>>16696888
how can I show you anything except pixels? don't play retarded word games, no one is buying it

>>16696902
If you can't show us your "irrational numbers", no one's buying your bullshit either.

>>16696888
show me an atom, they don't exist
matter is contiguous

>>16696913
Look at any square under a microscope and it becomes obvious that pythagoras is not applicable to it

>>16696906
Why, so you can play a retarded word game? Even if you saw a perfect square with your own eyes, it wouldn't look like a square if you tried to zoom in on it because your eyes are literally made of atoms and even with the best equipment you can't resolve things that are finer than about a sixth of a septillionth of an atom.
>>16696906
You're so retarded lol. Almost every physical relation on earth and in the universe has squares in it. Literally just drop a rock in a vacuum tube and you'll see a square in the acceleration.

>>16696948
>Even if you saw a perfect square with your own eyes, it wouldn't look like a square
Then that's just further evidence against perfect squares
>Literally just drop a rock in a vacuum tube and you'll see a square in the acceleration.
Are you sure you're not just hallucinating? No one sees squares when they drop anything

>>16696951
>being blind is evidence against color
You need to be 18 to post here

>>16696954
>hallucinations are evidence of perfect squares
You need to be sane to use the internet

>>16696956
Your retarded word game there was quoting yourself and pretending your own dopey word vomit is somehow dispositive. Better luck next time.

>>16696973
It's so funny watching irrational number cultists meltdown at the slightest pushback

>>16696700
irrational numbers by definition are infinite and unterminating so they must be written as representation though

>>16696700
irrational numbers by definition are infinite and non-repeating so they must be written as representation though

>>16696978
>so funny
>you meltdown
>me slightest
What's actually funny, not fake funny, is that I predicted that all of your posts would be a retarded word game like this, where you describe a thing in emotional language instead of making any sort of point about the thing itself, and you keep doing exactly that.

>>16696990
I just need to point out that you have still not shown an irrational number
>>16696987
Don't you think it's curious how they are defined so as to be unobservable and inconceivable?

>>16696994
>still not shown
Still a word game and you can still play the same word game about rational numbers and even natural numbers lol

>>16696999
I can show you natural numbers of things. Here are five I's: IIIII
Now do the same for an irrational number

>>16697000
Nope, "natural numbers of things" doesn't show me a natural number. Not any more than a falling rock shows you a perfect square relation. You can't have it both ways.

>>16697004
>doesn't show me a natural number.
I don't believe in abstract "numbers" either, so that's not my problem

>>16697006
Then we can agree, by your terms, that no number can be shown and no irrational number can be shown so there's nothing special about irrational numbers in terms of whether they can or can't be shown.

>>16697011
At least natural numbers of things can be shown whereas you have yet to demonstrate any real instance of irrational numbers

>>16697012
>natural numbers of things can be shown
You didn't show that either, you showed an approximation. Your IIIII aren't actually identical if you use the same microscope you used to complain about the diagonal of a square.

>>16697016
Even if true, at best that would show that even natural numbers of things don't exist. It still doesn't give you a real instance of irrational numbers

>>16697022
Correct, as I said here >>16697011
By your microscope condition, the diagonal of a square (√2) is no more or less showable than two identical sticks (2).

>>16697030
Okay, so forget about the identical part. Here are 5 things which look like Is: IIIII

>>16697035
Okay, so here's two diagonals in a square that look like √2

[eqn] \boxtimes [/eqn]

>>16697042
They don't look anything like that, since sqrt(2) can't even be imagined in the first place as it would need an infinite amount of memory

>>16697044
Look at the top left corner. You see the line that goes to the bottom right corner? That line "looks like" it's √2 times as long as the line that goes to the top right corner. By your own relaxed standard.

>>16697044
first of all the universe has an infinite amount of memory anyways according to you since there are infinite real numbers between 1 and 2, second i can imagine sqrt2 to be the positive solution to x^2 = 2 without my brain storing all the digits dummy

>>16697051
You're not imagining sqrt2, you're imagining that your equation "has a solution somewhere out there"
>>16697050
It looks more like 1.41 to me, so I guess by sqrt(2) you mean 1.41

>>16697055
I guess by 5 you mean 5.00

>>16697055
what is the volume of a sphere? infinite?

>>16697058
>what is the volume of a sphere?
>the
It has multiple volumes at different times which will be more or less close to each other

>It has multiple volumes at different times

>>16697055
I’m literally imagining sqrt2 right now and rotating it in four dimensions
Skill issue I guess

Fuck off.

>>16697089
Fuck on

>>16697075

>>16697075
Then you should be able to tell me immediately what the 1094749th digit is.

>>16697515
Why does that matter any more than being able to immediately tell you the 1094749th digit of 2^8000000?

>>16697686
It shows that you're not able to really imagine either of those

>>16697688
You can't imagine all the digits at the same time but you also can't even imagine every side of an icosagon at the same time. It's a very poor criterion for determining whether you can or can't imagine an object in general.

>>16697694
To look at something and go "it looks like sqrt(2)", you need to be first actually imagine sqrt(2). If you can't actually imagine sqrt(2) well enough to distinguish it from 1.4 or 1.41 or 1.414 etc. you're not really imagining sqrt(2) at all. Instead, you're deciding that it looks like sqrt(2) using purely theoretical considerations. The problem with using theoretical considerations is that anyone can reject the validity of your theory and hence also reject the validity of your conclusion that it looks like sqrt(2).

>>16696480 (OP)
Honestly good point. Fuck irrational numbers.
>>16696502
Nobody's arguing that.

>>16697705
Imagining the diagonal of square is no more or less an approximation than imagining two sides of a square. You can't even imagine 2 well enough to distinguish it from 2.0 and 2.00 and 2.000 and so on.
>>16697709
Then what's being argued?