trash

user1271772

07:43

However, you are not really qualified to say whether an answer is correct or incorrect or has factual errors. The proof is in your comments to that answer. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Mith, you're wasting my time, please don't.

Mith: what do you want?

Well what you're doing is destructive and not enjoyable at all.

You've barged in and said "people telling you that you're wrong makes you uncomfortable" which is not true. It's just wasting my time. Please be correct next time.

Ok Blue. I don't need your comments, just focus on trying to explain why my answer was incorrect.

Anonymous

07:58

← 4 messages moved from The Classical Channel

Anonymous

← 1 message moved from The Classical Channel

Anonymous

← 1 message moved from The Classical Channel

user1271772

08:33

EVERYONE deserves respect. @Mithrandir, please don't message me.

Anonymous

← 1 message moved from The Classical Channel

Anonymous

09:26

"
The term spoons was coined by Christine Miserandino in 2003 in her essay "The Spoon Theory".[8] The essay describes a conversation between Miserandino and a friend. The discussion was initiated by a question from the friend in which she asked about what having lupus feels like. The essay then describes the actions of Miserandino who took spoons from nearby tables to use as a visual aid. She handed her friend twelve spoons and asked her to describe the events of a typical day, taking a spoon away for each activity. In this way, she demonstrated that her spoons, or units of energy, must be …

Anonymous

09:47

← 1 message moved from The Classical Channel

The Great Duck

15:04

@XanderHenderson one might argue that the infinitesimals are a thing, but that gets into a messier realm

and true infinity still never exists

just numbers that are infinite in comparison to the real numbers

it's all relative

Xander Henderson

That doesn't address the issue, @TheGreatDuck.

"What is a number?"

The Great Duck

@XanderHenderson let's not get into ZFC

Xander Henderson

You don't need to get into ZFC to answer the question!

The Great Duck

then im misunderstanding the question

regardless the user is arguing for 0/infinity to be a thing

and my point is that maybe that works if one means infinity as in an infinitesimal greater than all real numbers

Xander Henderson

The high-rep user claims that infinity is not a number. In order to make that claim, the high-rep user needs to give some definition of a number, and explain what property that numbers have which infinity does not.

The Great Duck

15:06

but even then it's obscuring the succintness of the limit

Xander Henderson

If I claim that a "number" is an element of the one-point compactification of $\mathbb{C}$, then there is a "number", usually called $\infty$, that lives in that set.

The Great Duck

@XanderHenderson that debate has been around since the age of the Greeks. I doubt that one user is going to resolve that.

Xander Henderson

You are entirely missing my point, @TheGreatDuck.

The Great Duck

but this is in the context of a basic calculus question

and in calculus one only deals with real numbers

of which infinity is not

Xander Henderson

If you say that infinity is "not a number," then it is incumbent upon you to provide a definition of a "number" which is not satisfied by infinity.

The Great Duck

15:08

@XanderHenderson I know but I agree with Henning entirely.

Xander Henderson

Sigh... I didn't ask you if you agreed or not.

The Great Duck

or at least that attempting to define infinity ends very badly

then what are you asking me?

Xander Henderson

And no one is asking you to define "infinity" (though why does "end very badly"?)

The Great Duck

if you define infinity

and say it is greater than everything in the set it is within

Xander Henderson

Honestly, I wasn't asking you anything. I was making the point that if you say "X is not a Y!", then you need to define Y, and explain why X is not a Y.

The Great Duck

15:09

than you cannot have infinity^2

or

Xander Henderson

Simply asserting that it is so is not okay

The Great Duck

infinity^2 = infinity

which is even worse

it is far better to appeal to the notion of infinitesimal when dealing with infinity imo

Xander Henderson

@TheGreatDuck You should look into the study of infinite ordinals

The Great Duck

or just use it as "notation" for divergence

@XanderHenderson if I have time

Xander Henderson

where things like $\omega^2$ can be made sense of (where $\omega$ is an infinite ordinal; ordinals being objects that one might even---gasp---assert are a kind of number)

The Great Duck

15:11

yeah i know

the set of rational expressions is a field that in a way contains infinity

a sort of infinity

Xander Henderson

But, once again, the point is not to debate whether or not $\infty$ is or is not a number---the point is that when you assert that "$X$ is not a $Y$," then you should explain what, exactly, a $Y$ is, and why $X$ is not one.

The Great Duck

unless you mean something else

@XanderHenderson which is why I said ZCF

or better yet

just say real number

i have to go

Xander Henderson

But no one was asking you to explain what a number is; I was pointing out that, in a comment thread, a certain high-rep user twice asserted that "infinity is not a number" after being asked, explicitly, to define a "number".

I find it kind of insulting that you think that I don't know what a number is, and are trying to explain it to me like I am a first year undergrad. The particular example of what is (or is not) a number isn't even my point. :\

The Great Duck

@XanderHenderson no I know you know

I assumed you were questioning my knowledge.

or wanting an actual explanation to be written in that thread.

If someone at least doesn't know ZFC they have no business reading those real analysis questions.

so i figured you at least knew that

:-P

user21820

@TheGreatDuck: ZFC has nothing to do with real analysis. Please don't talk as if you know both well, when you don't.

5

The Great Duck

15:19

@user21820 don't butt in

Xander Henderson

@TheGreatDuck This is a public chat. @user21820 is not "Butting in."

2

The Great Duck

17:03

@Did this was a discussion of a post that needed editing.

@user21820 you're right. I don't know anything at all about either to be honest.

user21820

@TheGreatDuck Quick recommendation: you can learn 'elementary' real analysis from Spivak's Calculus. ZFC is not worth learning until much much later. (If you want to ask more about how to learn either, you should ask in the main chat-room.)

The Great Duck

...

ok

The Great Duck

17:24

@user21820 i saw the answer

He claims to have a proof of a well known theorem

and a citation

And i gather that the theorem answers the question?

FreezePhoenix

Hello

The Masked Rebel

Hello

please may you turn on your bot :)

user21820

It wasn't a citation; it was to his own writing. Secondly, link-only answers are not allowed on SE, even if it were not a fake proof.

FreezePhoenix

@Raphiel has had an upgrade. Right?

@FreezePhoenix What does that suggest to you ?

The Great Duck

if course

i said other than being a link only answer

The Masked Rebel

17:28

@Raphiel has had an upgrade. Right?

FreezePhoenix

@TheMaskedRebel That is interesting. Please continue.

The Great Duck

Yikes just seemed a bit of an extreme reaction

FreezePhoenix

@Raphiel My problem is asthma

@FreezePhoenix Does that suggest anything else which belongs to you ?

The Great Duck

but if that was his own writing then yikes indeed

the link wouldnt load for me

The Masked Rebel

@Raphiel no

FreezePhoenix

17:28

@Raphiel it suggests an inhaler

The Great Duck

internet issues

FreezePhoenix

@TheMaskedRebel Why not ?

@FreezePhoenix But your problem is asthma.

user21820

He explicitly wrote "a link on my view", so it must indeed be his own writing.

2

The Masked Rebel

@Raphiel because I have a gun

FreezePhoenix

@TheMaskedRebel That's quite interesting.

user21820

17:29

I didn't click the link. Clicking unknown links is one way of getting malware.

3

The Masked Rebel

@Raphiel and I'm shooting you right now

FreezePhoenix

@TheMaskedRebel Do you know anyone else who is shooting I right now ?

user21820

Anyway I got to go. See you!

The Masked Rebel

@Raphiel yes. Me

FreezePhoenix

@TheMaskedRebel I understand.

@TheMaskedRebel this is not the place

The Great Duck

17:31

see ya

@user21820 didnt catch it. it disappeared pretty fast from the delete. :-)

Anonymous

← 20 messages moved from Game Development

FreezePhoenix

@snailboat Well... that works i guess

I woulda moved em here: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/75397/raphiels-playground

Have we met before?

Anonymous

Probably not. Although I'm a game developer, I don't go in gamedev chat much. In the past, people have reacted guardedly to off-site mods showing up in gamedev chat, so I try to be cautious about popping in there. I just saw the flag asking for the messages to be removed and thought I could bring them over here for you.

FreezePhoenix

17:46

@snailboat I think we have met - I walked in a room that was for a conversation on a question... and the room got changed to private while I was in it.

Anonymous

Ah, I see.

FreezePhoenix

You may possible know me as TheOneWhoMade or Pheo

Anyway... Thanks!

Xander Henderson

18:05

@TheGreatDuck The answer was link only answer which goes to an non-peer reviewed article written by the author of the answer. As pointed out by a commenter, the article does not even mention Fermat's last theorem, hence it does not answer the question. Moreover, the article's title is "No conjecture is permanently undecidable in real numbers," which is mathematical nonsense. The article itself isn't much better.

2

I felt like "Yikes!" was a reasonable reaction.

The Great Duck

@XanderHenderson well technically I've heard (but this may be wrong) that any turing machine augmented to compute any arbitrary limit to an actual value is capable of solving the halting problem (which would in turn make decidable any problem we have currently thought of afaik). Of course, it is nonsense to assume we will ever physically construct such a machine or be capable of evaluating its results.

I assumed Fermat's Last Theorem already had a proof

am I mistaken?

but yeah

my reaction would be a tableflip emote

Xander Henderson

It's like you don't even read what I wrote...

The Great Duck

too bad SE doesnt have those

@XanderHenderson i did

It depends on what "No conjecture is permanently undecidable in real numbers," means exactly

certainly makes no sense

but i have seen interesting things claim that such computational models exist just outside the reach of our limited minds

@XanderHenderson oooh

undecidable in that sense

I thought they meant non-computable

i.e. a turing machine doesnt exist to solve that problem

to which the answer would be to make a better mouse trap

too bad we cannot

this got way too drawn out though

I'll refrain from such discussion in the future

if i gather correctly this chat is more of a "post link => close or not close" sort of place

Xander Henderson

← 1 message moved from CRUDE

amWhy

19:02

← 57 messages moved from CRUDE

← 38 messages moved from CRUDE

amWhy

23:41

If someone claims "I observe a therapeutic fury towards me that is objectively concrete", can anyone translate that, or suggest how to interpret that? seriously.

Transcript for