# ITT we post quackery

ITT we post quackery

I'll start us off with the field of "Real" numbers, which is actually logically inconsistent with itself.

All urls found in this thread:

the field of "Real" numbers is actually logically inconsistent with itself.
Yup, that's some gold-standard quackery right there.

This

a number that does not exist

Top kek.

The non-finitist quacks have arrived, everybody.

Since no one else is posting: The continuum hypothesis, which is less of an hypothesis and more of a conjecture by uneducated morons who refuse to work with other axioms than the ones their professors taught them decades ago.

which is actually logically inconsistent with itself.
Derive false from your favorite axiomatization of the reals of GTFO.

Real number are sequences of digits that are not rational.
Hows is this difficult to understand.

Brainlet.

0.999(9) = 1

using a high school definition of reals
For shame

"Real number are sequences of digits"
calls others brainlets

the only "real" numbers are the primes

Oh. But if you want it to be false you need unicity of decimal representation.
protip, there's no such a thing.

So basically Dewey created one of the dankest memes

Reals axioms don't require real numbers to have unique decimal representation

The real numbers contain the rationals
even the people hating on this post haven't pointed that out
holy shit this is why i use physicsforums

Be real OP, this is just a contrived way of making a 0.999... = 1 thread

Given that you want the real numbers to be a field, with a unique identity (1) and so on, you'd really have to consider an equivalence class of sequences (where e.g. the set {[0,9,9,...] and [1,0,0,...]} models the number "1") and so this isn't much better than the Cauchy sequences.
Cauchy sequences are probably chosen over "equivalence classes of sequences of digits" because it lends itself better to analysis (calculus).

Is you best argument against the CH is that "its not a hypothesis its a conjecture"?

That's nitpicking. It's doubtful you even understand people's complaints about it.

Watching Wildberger does not mean you have an educated opinion on mathematical logic or set theory.

There's just so much wrong with it, its hard to know where to start.

top lel

Is you best argument against the CH is that "its not a hypothesis its a conjecture"?
My best argument against CH is that any reasonable axioms you choose to perform set theoretical work in should make it possible to prove it false.

so a reasonable axiom system for you includes the negation of CH?

Real analysis doesn't like CH that much.

It doesn't necessarily have to include CH's negation, just imply it.

does real analysis even care about CH?
the only axiom I've really seen being discussed in a real analysis context is AOC.
what axiom would you suggest that implies it's negation?

AOC implies the law of excluded middle

what axiom would you suggest that implies it's negation?
That's not my point. I don't propose any axiom, I just refuse to accept axioms that don't imply CH's negation.

I think you mean "I refuse to accept axioms that imply CH"

You don't want to bar the possibility of accepting axioms which are independent of CH ;)

I think Godel proved that CH can't be proved with the current axioms. If I remember right, there are proofs in real analysis that prove the axiom of choice, but CH implies AOC. Do you see the contradiction?

I think Godel proved that CH can't be proved with the current axioms.

Actually that it's independent of the ZFC axioms. You can't prove OR DISPROVE the CH with just the ZFC axioms (which includes choice). What you remember is not correct.

which is actually logically inconsistent with itself
go on. you asserted a claim. prove it.

The ZFC universe is a large one. If you can't prove it in ZFC + the Grothendieck add-on, I don't see how AOC can be proved so easily in real analysis. Even though it has been a while, I think they had us "prove" AOC with the well-ordering principle or some shit like that. I'm just saying AOC is a spin-off of CH, and the CH is undecidable. That's the contradiction. AOC is also undecidable.

math.stackexchange.com/questions/472957/the-continuum-hypothesis-the-axiom-of-choice

Continuum hypotesis doesn't imply AoC but Generalised CH implies AoC, which can Be proved in ZF.

ITT we post quackery

Oops.

Do you know what undecidable means?

there are proofs in real analysis that prove the axiom of choice
No.
CH implies AOC
No.
Please actually learn the subjects you're talking about before shitposting on Veeky Forums.

Sorry anon, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
carry on

Whoops I meant assuming GCH, it implies AoC