Hurr durr if I map infinity onto stuff I can prove that you know nothing, checkmate atheists

>hurr durr if I map infinity onto stuff I can prove that you know nothing, checkmate atheists

Doesn't Gödel's assumption only work if you believe there to be an infinite amount of axioms?

If a set of axioms isn't enough for consistency, why not make a category of axioms?

Doesn't that still run into the problem of being able to add in an infinite amount of axioms?

>infinite

found your problem

when will people stop the memes and realize the redpill is a youtube search away?

I only put the memes out thinking it would draw in more people to debate it.
t. spoonfeedmepls

[math]\mathbb{N} = \emptyset[/math]

>[math] \mathbb{N} [/math]
No such thing.

Why would he want to get rid of [math]\mathbb{N}[/math]? Why would he also think abstract mathematical concepts need to be grounded in physics? I feel like Wildberger is trying to find a solution where there is no problem.

i've opened the door, only you can walk through it

mathematics was born out of the physical world

> The Syracuse problem is not a problem

True enough user. But, what you're claiming is that because we live in a finite world, it is stupid to assume that there COULD be an infinite amount of axioms? But doesn't also just say that Godel was wrong? Unless you count all possible primes part of the physical world.

So numbers exist in the physical world now?

you need to have passed high school to post here friend

I think you haven't considered the problem of what the ontology of numbers is. There's no obvious answer to whether or not numbers exist in the physical world.

Das ist kein Argument.

can't argue on a triple digit iq discussion with a two digit iq pleb

You're not helping your cause. It seems like you have no arguments to give.

i never had the intent. ta ta.

Class, here is a textbook case of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

it's actually called the gorilla bait & cuck newfag, got you right on my hook

How will I ever recover?