Are infinity and uncountability the worst ideas in mathematics?

Are infinity and uncountability the worst ideas in mathematics?

No

They are placeholders until we can enumerate.

No. They are simple and useful. There exist transcendental numbers? Obvious. The very foundations of measure theory being at all meaningful? Requires countable vs uncountable infinities. The distinction is elegant and inextricable from mainstream mathematics.

...

Finitism is the worst idea in mathematics.

Seeing your handmade template reused feels like seeing a child grow up. My clockmed meme has come far.

Admit it, it´s gold dust...

I do agree OP.
These are some of the worst ideas in mathematics.
Though infinity has its usefulness when finding limits. Though again you could argue that we don't need infinity and still find a limit as it approaches arbitrary large numbers.

There no bigger infinities, the idea is flawed in itself. Even cantor's proof is illogical. You have to reach the end of infinity to crate the new number... Why can't people understand that...

You forgot to sign your post "t. Someone who doesn't understand Cantor's proof."

>There no bigger infinities, the idea is flawed in itself. Even cantor's proof is illogical. You have to reach the end of infinity to crate the new number...
No you don't, retard. The diagonalization is an infinite decimal with every digit determined by the numbers on your supposed list. If you don't understand how real numbers work then there is no point in even discussing a proof that they cannot be listed.

>You have to reach the end of infinity to crate the new number
nah dog

There just isn't a one to one correspondence between countable and uncountable infinities.

Isn't this problem solvable if you assume that the gold and the silver balls in the second box are 50/50?

So infinity/infinity = 1?

You have to define "at random."

greater than 50%

>assume
go to hell

Sqrt(2) certainly doesn't exist

Yep. The only number that doesn't equal 1 when divided by itself is 0.

I really hope you're meming here

it's 50-50%

either it's random or it isn't

You have approximately 3 to 1 odds.
And yes.

False. There is no specified probability measure.

This problem is not solvable. The reason is that you are supposed to pick a box "at random", but it's impossible to put a probability measure on the space of boxes.

Kek.

a lot of people say its 50/50, but thats incorrect.

its actually 250, since we are dealing with equal numbers of balls separated equally but drawn unequally and with prior knowledge of the outcome, the chances are stacked multiplicatively to be 50x50 = 250

This gives a 250/50/50x5 = 0.5 = 50% chance. Any brainlet saying anything other than 50% doesnt understand statistics and is probably just an unoriginal applied math learn-and-apply-by-rote-memorization scrub as they all are.

Hope this helps :^)

50/50 (colloquial way of saying 50 you do, 50 you don't) *is* 50%

it equals 50% plus another percentage based on (density of uncountable gold)/(density of uncountable silver)

100%

>Sqrt(2) certainly doesn't exist
It exists, but it can't be drawn on the number line, because it doesn't have a finite position.
You can just approximate it, or consider a range of the number line to represent it.

>There just isn't a one to one correspondence between countable and uncountable infinities.
There is a 1 to 1 correspondence, you are just limiting the integers to numbers of finite digit length. If you drop that notion, then there is no problem in enumerating all irrational numbers. Further more, when you refer to the uncountability of the irrational numbers, you are referring to numbers which can grow to infinity in 2 dimensions. The infinity before the dot and the infinity after the dot. But as we all know there are one dimensional curves which can intersect all points in an infinite 2D plane.

But many math professors do happen to share my opinion.
Do you think they don't understand Cantor's proof either? Do you consider yourself better? (I'ts a rhetoric question.)

>There is a 1 to 1 correspondence; you are just limiting the integers to numbers of finite digit length. If you drop that notion, then there is no problem in enumerating all irrational numbers. Furthermore, when you refer to the uncountability of the irrational numbers, you are referring to numbers which can grow to infinity in 2 dimensions. The infinity before the dot and the infinity after the dot.

What the hell are you talking about? Every single aspect of this is absolute drivel.

infinity is a valid concept, it is basically a recursive loop