Set theory

the solution to the minimum distance problem was known because of some mystical intuition stuff
nowadays you can prove it with analysis

in this picture x+y is the minimum distance from A to line L to line B

i think you mean
[math] \{x : x \neq x\} [/math]

googling "the minimum distance problem" brings up lots of basic calculus and a computer algorithm for finding which two points in a set of points are the closest to each other.

what problem are you referring to?

>can't understand why logical flow in an argument is important
>can't understand why to need to find the minimal number of assumptions

brainlet

a long time ago if you wanted to know the shortest distance from a building to a water source to another building, you could construct the problem geometrically
the shortest distance from A to L to B is the same as the distance from A to B', which is B's reflection over L.

That's why light travels the 'shortest distance' between any two points. The apparent distance between you and the image of an object in a mirror is the same as the distance from you to the image on the surface of the mirror to the object.

>Newton, Gauss, Neumann, Oiler
1/4 written correctly
You tried I guess

That expression does not define a set in modern set theory. Go back to your 1 != 0.99... memes because obviously elementary set theory is too advanced for your pityful brain.

Im pretty sure he didint, x/=x is obviously false for every set therefore your set is just the empty set.

>your set is just the empty set.

But {} = {}

?
your set is {} not {{}}
there is a difference between the empty set and the set of the empty set.

Leibniz, GauB, Newman and Oiler, my bad

Exactly, so the set of all x not equal to x would have no elements. It wouldn't contain the empty set, because it doesn't contain any set!

>Newman
its "from Newman" you pleb

Better

you don't need any analysis to prove this, as long as you accept that the shortest path between two points is a straight line. the picture you gave is more or less a complete proof.

Read up on Thurston. He probably had the best spatial intuition of anyone documented. He also had the gift of understanding what was leading his intuitions, so proofs came easy. Very few of his conjectures wound up being incorrect.

>mystical inution
Nigga its fucking common sense if you are not dealing with other types of geometries or metric spaces.

Intuitionist logic was formalized after the fact. It's initially the mode of doing math by (mental) constructions.

and 1+1=2 is common sense
unless you have a degree in math

Fucking topkek

>contributed nothing
>discovered sum of all positive integers

k

counterkek: thats how his name is pronounced

kekmate

I really love GauB.

He's not OP, I am OP and i don't approve of this list.

Leibniz was a mathcuck, plain and simple. Newton was 100x smarter and better.

I should know, i have an IQ of 140 verified by screenshot and timestamp from Veeky Forums-approved online IQ tests like iqtest.com

dont even try and debate me

I know that's how it's pronounced, I was keking at the phonetic spelling of the name rather than the correct spelling

>acting this serious about trivial /sci discussions

counterkek rescinded

>>discovered sum of positive integers

Which would be...? It's not - 1/12 and infinity is not a number.

Euler softened the problem up for him though.

Are you fucking dumb or just Indian?

>brainlet
Shut the fuck up.

I asked about advanced, complex fields.

an extremely simple problem that a 12 year old could answer definitely falls under cute and dinky instead.

Indians annoy me so fucking much, why each and every one of them things he's the next Albert Einstein?
They just flip flop poop some shit and think they are master geniuses.

These fucking people gives me some racist ideas

>fuck the other race for making me racist

That is the whole point. We need the axiomatic approach to make sure we're not running into paradoxes like that.

It is, and dr numberphile, PhD proved this

U don't. Mr wildburger doesn't use them

Unfortunately a lot of them are leading technological development here in America and that makes me really fucking upset. Just look at the names of some of the top students and researches at the best universities here. Why the fuck do we give these people opportunities?

>Be me
>UG in CS
>In graduate school
>Taking graduate course in logic covering topics like soundness, compactness, completeness, etc
>babby stuff

Is this 'math classes are harder than CS classes' thing a meme? The only difference I have noticed is the structure of the class; the work required in this class is comprised of a significantly lighter load than those of upper-level systems classes in the CS department.

it isn't. the proof is absurd, but then again brainlets like you are the target audience

>>Taking graduate course in logic covering topics like soundness, compactness, completeness, etc
This is like the beginning of actual logic my dude. Wait until you get to the nightmare of trying to apply it to any fields of mathematics.

(not him)
Mathematical logic is pretty easy tbqh. I guess you're talking about showing that particular models are complete / derivation systems are sound or complete etc. Anyways it's pretty tautological stuff once you know the proof usually (no pun intended). Everything is by induction basically.

Thank you. I can't tell you how long I've been looking for someone who agrees with me on this.

>Mathematical logic is pretty easy tbqh

>Common Sense = Superpower

>it was discovered
i think he's refering to his mentor

Brainlets like you can't detect sarcasm